Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

EDINBURGH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION

Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Edinburgh Corporation, presented by Mr. John Maclay (under Section 7 of the Act); and ordered to be considered upon Monday next and to be printed. [Bill 40.]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCIENCE

Nuclear Energy

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what advances have been made in this country during the last three months towards developing the uses of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

The Parliamentary Secretary for Science (Mr. Denzil Freeth): It is not useful, or, indeed possible to isolate progress in scientific fields into three-monthly periods. The steady progress which has been made is described in the Annual Reports of the Atomic Energy Authority. If the hon. and learned Member wishes to put down a Question on any specific aspect of the work I shall be glad to answer it.

Mr. Hughes: I thank the Minister for inviting me to put down a further Question, but does he realise that the appeal of science is as widespread as the desire of mankind for a settled peace? Will he state what steps he is taking to internationalise and co-ordinate Britain's scientific efforts with those of other

nations in order to achieve the maximum benefit for mankind out of these efforts?

Mr. Freeth: The United Kingdom has agreements with a number of countries, both East and West, for the exchange of scientific information on the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. In addition, our representatives play a very full part in the work of the relevant international organisations, notably the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Mr. Peart: We agree that we can assess developments in this field only upon the basis of twelve-monthly reports, but can the Minister assure us that research into small power reactors is going on and is being speeded up?

Mr. Freeth: Research into every kind of reactor is going on in this country, and the Atomic Energy Agency is principally concerned with the main reactor types, to which reference was made in the last Report.

Red Deer Stags, Island of Rhum

Mr. Kimball: asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science how many red deer stags were shot on the Island of Rhum in September and October of this year; what was their average weight, weighed without heart and liver; and how many hinds it is intended to shoot this winter.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: The answer to the first part of the Question is forty-eight stags. All those shot during the season and brought to the larder were weighed less gralloch, but including heart, liver and lights. The average weight was 11 st. 11 lb. The answer to the last part of the question is 136.

Mr. Kimball: Does my hon. Friend realise that such a low average weight as this must indicate that the island is grossly overstocked with red deer? When the Red Deer Commission, under the auspices and with the advice of the Nature Conservancy, has an absolute obsession about the over-stocking of other people's grounds, should not an effort be made by the Commission to put its own house in order first?

Mr. Freeth: I do not think that my hon. Friend has yet fully appreciated that sporting estates are managed on entirely different principles, and that their figures are not comparable. In fact, fully-grown Rhum stags are as heavy as 21 st., but the heaviest shot this year was 19 st. 6 lb. It is necessary to undertake culling upon a scientific basis, and this naturally means that stags are shot which would not be shot on a sporting estate.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order. In future, do we put Questions about deer in Scotland to the Parliamentary Secretary for Science?

Mr. Speaker: I shall have to investigate that matter further.

Mr. H. Hynd: Will the Minister impose some limitation upon the shooting of hind?

Engineering Designers

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what progress has been made by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research in the recruitment of engineering designers for the purpose of facilitating industrial design, the lack of whom is causing concern among industrialists.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: My noble Friend is concerned that industry should make the fullest use of first-class engineering designers, who should, in his opinion, be recruited directly into industry, rather than through D.S.I.R. Despite the great expansion which is being made in the provision for the teaching of engineering, he is not satisfied that the supply and training of engineering designers is yet adequate for national needs. Following a constructive discussion of the matter at the Engineering Advisory Council of the Board of Trade last month, he proposes to pursue it further with the bodies which are concerned with the training of engineers.

Mr. Dempsey: Will the Minister take into consideration the fact that this is causing serious concern to industrialists in my part of the country? Is he aware that one factory in my constituency has had to import every machine from Germany, because of our lack of industrial designers? Does not he realise that it is our duty and responsibility to

compete, even with Germany, and that we should do our utmost to do so successfully and to see that engineering designers in Britain are able to stand firm in the face of modern competition?

Mr. Freeth: I appreciate the interest of the hon. Member in this vital need. I said in my Answer that my noble Friend was not satisfied with the present position. He and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade are in close touch and are trying to find ways to ameliorate the situation.

Strontium 90

Commander Kerans: asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what investigations his Department have undertaken in the matter of eradication of strontium 90 from dried and natural milk, which can now be made to the extent of over 90 per cent.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: The removal of strontium 90 from milk has been investigated by the Atomic Energy Research Establishment at Harwell, and the National Institute for Research in Dairying near Reading. Contact is also being maintained with developments in other countries, particularly the United States of America.

Commander Kerans: Will not my hon. Friend agree that scientists in the U.S.A. have now produced a method whereby over 90 per cent. of strontium 90 can be eradicated? If this country can adopt it as an economic process, and I am told that it is an economic process, would not it go a long way to allay the anxiety of young mothers?

Mr. Freeth: I understand that the eradication of stronium 90 from milk by the ion exchange process has been demonstrated on a laboratory scale with extremely high initial levels of contamination. We shall need other and further investigations in order to determine whether similar success would be obtained in practical large-scale processes with the lower levels of contamination which might result from nuclear weapon tests.

Mr. Snow: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say what are the other radioactive elements against which protection has to be sought?

Mr. Freeth: The Question referred to strontium 90. I should not like to give answers off the cuff to questions about eradicating other radioactive isotopes.

Mrs. Castle: asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what steps he is taking to ensure that any increased contamination of United Kingdom food supplies by strontium 90 is immediately detected.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: The monitoring survey maintained since 1958 by the Agricultural Research Council in consultation with the Medical Research Council is designed to achieve this.

Mrs. Castle: is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that scientists of the Blackburn Technical College are collaborating with the Fylde water board in monitoring the level of radioactivity in local water supplies and in the atmosphere? Does not he think that it would help to give reassurance to the public about this very serious danger if every local water authority and local technical college were encouraged to undertake a similar monitoring service?

Mr. Freeth: Monitoring services with regard to radioactivity in the air, rainfall and drinking water are the responsibility of the Atomic Energy Authority and the results are published as often as the Authority deems it necessary in the public interest.

Mrs. Slater: is the hon. Gentleman aware that some local authorities are doing this with their water supplies and that in north Staffordshire there have been alarming results regarding the difference between reservoirs and underwater springs? Does not he think it important that local water boards should be encouraged to do this?

Mr. Freeth: I will look into the matter further, but I must take the advice of my experts on the subject.

Radioactivity

Mrs. Butler: asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science if he will arrange for the publication of daily bulletins on the degree of radioactive contamination of air, water, foodstuffs and milk in the appropriate regions of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: No, Sir. I am advised that short-term fluctuations in radioactivity have little significance.

Mrs. Butler: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the present publication of results on a weekly basis is quite inadequate if there is a sudden increase in the radioactive contamination of food, as there may well be by strontium 90 in the spring? Cannot we have daily bulletins on similar lines to the Meteorological Office announcements, so that the public and those responsible for foodstuffs may be made immediately aware of any significant increase, and take the necessary action?

Mr. Freeth: With regard to iodine 131 where at the moment weekly reports are being issued, I am informed that the day-to-day fluctuations give little guidance as to the trend of radioactivity. In particular, as the hon. Lady will remember, it is not only a question of taking samples but of analysing those samples and doing the necessary calculations. I am informed that the most useful guide is the average of weekly or longer periods. It is most unlikely that the rise in strontium 90 in our diet will be at anything like the speed which we had in the case of iodine 131, and I am assured that it is most unlikely that the rise could be greater than can be dealt with by the present method of sampling.

Medical Research (Animals)

Mrs. Braddock: asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science if he is aware that a fund to be known as the Lawson Tait Memorial Fund has been established and registered as a trust to find alternatives to the use of living animals in medical investigations; and, in view of the importance of research in this matter, if he will consider making a grant to this fund to assist its work.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: The reply to the first part of the Question is yes sir. As to the second part, the Medical Research Council would consider on its scientific merits any detailed research programme which might be submitted to them.

Mrs. Braddock: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that there is so much resentment about the rise to 3,750,000 in experiments on living animals that


any opportunity or attempt to find alternatives ought to have the fullest financial support of the Government? Would the hon. Gentleman be prepared to meet a deputation in order to discuss ways and means to deal with this situation from a financial point of view?

Mr. Freeth: I should certainly be most happy to receive any deputation which the hon. Lady cared to bring to me. But I think that she must remember that the Medical Research Council exists to give grants for specific research and not to give grants to bodies which themselves make grants to other people.

Scientists (Emigration)

Mr. Peart: asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science if he will state the number of scientists who are known to have left the United Kingdom during the past five years to take up scientific positions abroad.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Sydney Irving) on 18th July last.

Mr. Peart: The Ministry and the Government are always dodging this issue. When will they give real figures? As every hon. Member knows, there is a serious drain of scientific manpower from this country. Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that unless something is done, it will be serious not only for British industry but also for our way of life?

Mr. Freeth: From Questions which we have had in this House previously the hon. Member will realise the difficulty of getting any really accurate figures. I am told that it is estimated that immigration in recent years is more than half the rate of emigration. In addition, it is not only a matter of financial rewards on the other side of the Atlantic or elsewhere. Certainly, one of the main causes which has come to my notice is the existence of centres of research of international standing, conducted under inspiring leadership, where the best work may be done in particular spheres. It would be very wrong if we attempted to dissuade scientists from going to such centres and coming back enriched to give us the benefit.

Mr. Peart: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that every responsible scientist and leader would give him information about the drain from our laboratories of laboratory personnel and research personnel? This is going on and it is no use being apathetic about it. The Government must do something and get the information. They have it available.

Mr. Freeth: The hon. Member must realise that the information given in the Press from time to time relates to particular research laboratories or institutions. If the hon. Gentleman is asking for national figures he knows as well as I the difficulty about getting them.

Sir Richard Pilkington: Does the Minister consider that the emigration of scientists at the top is more than balanced by the immigration of people who, however worthy in themselves, are certainly not scientists?

Mr. Albu: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that a great deal of the difficulty in this problem is caused by the inadequacy of research funds in universities? May I ask how it is that when the Minister is himself responsible for grants to universities from the Research Council he should transfer my Question on this matter to the Treasury? Does not this make complete nonsense of the functions of the Minister for Science for the co-ordination of research?

Mr. Freeth: As the hon. Member says, my noble Friend is responsible for grants given by the Research Councils for research work either at the universities or in association with them. By far the greater amount of university research work is done on funds provided by the University Grants Committee for which my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is responsible.

Scientific and Industrial Research, Scotland

Mr. Bence: asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science how many scientists are employed, in Scotland, on all forms of research, in the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research; and what steps he is taking to increase the Department in Scotland.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: The number of scientists employed in Scotland by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research is 170. The present intention is to increase the staff in Scotland; the rate of expansion will depend on assessments of changing priorities, as well as on the resources available.

Mr. Bence: While thanking the hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—for that reply, may I ask if he is satisfied, on the Report on Scientific Manpower, that the expansion of scientific research in Scotland is being raised to the standard necessary to increase in Scotland that tremendous diversity of industry so desired by everyone? Will he speed up the expansion of scientific and technological research for Scotland to increase that diversity of industry?

Mr. Freeth: I assure the hon. Member that the D.S.I.R. is at present considering the recommendations of the Tooth ill Committee's Report which bear on this problem.

Mr. Woodburn: Will the hon. Gentleman ask his noble Friend to consider the Government's policy on diversification and reallocation of industry by the siting of research stations in Scotland as one of the essential features of stimulating growing areas, and taking industry from the crowded areas of the Midlands and London?

Mr. Freeth: I hope that the right hon. Member will acknowledge that D.S.I.R., in addition to its two main research laboratories in Scotland, also has the office of the Geological Survey and substations of other research stations—the Building Research Station, the Laboratory of the Government Chemist, the Radio Research Station, the Road Research Laboratory, the Warren Spring Laboratory and the Water Pollution Research Laboratory. It has certainly done a lot to increase laboratory representation in Scotland.

Scientific Manpower (Report)

Mr. C. Johnson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science whether he has now considered the Report of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy on The Long-term Demand for Scientific Manpower, Command Paper No. 1490; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Skeffington: asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science whether the Government accept the conclusion contained in the Report on The Longterm Demand for Scientific Manpower, presented by the Scientific Manpower Committee of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy; what steps he proposes to take in this connection; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: My noble Friend commented fully on the Report in another place on 15th November, and I would refer hon. Members to the OFFICIAL REPORT of that debate.

Mr. Johnson: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that this Report has been received with a certain amount of misgiving and that, in particular, doubts have been expressed about assumptions upon which estimates of future demand for and the likely supply of technologists and scientists have been based? Does he not agree that the Report gives no justification for any easing of the drive for scientific education in this country, and that future career prospects in science are likely to be better in future than some readings of this Report might suggest?

Mr. Freeth: I fully accept the hon. Member's suggestion that some of the estimates and some of the assumptions may well in the next ten years not turn out to be such as the Committee has suggested. On the other hand, I do not think that detracts from the value of the Report as an exercise in long-term forecasting. I agree fully with the hon. Member that, as my noble Friend said in another place, the prospects of any able young man or woman now about to set out on a scientific or technological career can never have been brighter.

Research Associations

Mr. Bence: asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science how many companies contribute to the work of research associations; and what steps he is taking to encourage greater scientific and technological research by these associations.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: There are approximately 22,000 members of research associations, of whom a few belong to more than one association. The Council


for Scientific and Industrial Research awards grants to these associations on terms providing an incentive for expansion. Special grants may be given for extraordinary capital expenditure and also for schemes designed to accelerate the application of research.

Mr. Bence: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great deal of feeling that many of these research associations do not receive the co-operation of very large companies in making basic research into various processes of industry? The Report on the Long-term Demand for Scientific Manpower takes the view that the demand for scientists within private industry should be far greater than the demand of the research associations. Therefore, we may assume that the research associations will not expand at the rate at which they should because of the failure of many large industries to co-operate in basic research in these establishments.

Mr. Freeth: I would not say that the large firms were necessarily less or more co-operative than medium-sized or small firms in active membership of research associations. It is a very difficult question to go into properly at Question Time, because there is such an enormous difference between research associations themselves. To quote an example, in the wool industry 99 per cent. of research is done in the research association, whereas in the electrical industry probably only 1 per cent. is done there.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Would my hon. Friend agree that rather than it being a problem to get research associations to undertake research, the big problem is to get all the firms which should to take up and develop what the research associations produce?

Mr. Freeth: I agree with my hon. Friend in that. As the House is aware, the whole position of research associations is at present being reviewed by the Research Council at the request of my noble Friend.

Mr. Rankin: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that we have been hearing these Answers for a number of years now and, despite them, the total amount of research in its scientific and technological aspect in Scotland is still negligible and in some aspects it is totally

non-existent? Have we now to await consideration of the Toothill Report before anything is done?

Mr. Freeth: I think that the hon. Member is being rather unfair in suggesting that the D.S.I.R. does not Rut the due proportion of its total qualified manpower into Scotland, because no less than 15 per cent. goes into Scotland, whose population is only 10 per cent. of that of Great Britain as a whole.

Space Exploration

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science, in his study of the possibilities and advantages of space exploration by means of rockets, what information his Department has sought and received from the United States of America and the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics about the scientific knowledge they have thus gained from sending men into space.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: Our plans for space exploration do not include any projects for sending men into space. No specific inquiries have therefore been directed to this activity. Much relevant information from both the United States and the U.S.S.R. is available to British scientists.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is it true, as reported, that it is my hon. Friend's belief, although he has not made any inquiry, that the Americans and the Russians are not getting value for money out of sending men into space?

Mr. Freeth: My noble Friend has been advised that the possible scientific benefits of sendings men into space would not justify our incurring the expenditure involved in putting men into space. This, I think, is the application of the principle to this country.

Mr. J. T. Price: While the hon. Gentleman is considering this matter in further detail, could he give the House an interim indication of how his Ministry views the comments on space exploration by the Astronomer Royal who is reported as having said some time ago that he regarded this business as "all bunk"?

Mr. Freeth: I think that goes rather wider than the Question.

Linear Accelerator, Glasgow University

Mr. Willis: asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science why the Natural Philosophy Department of Glasgow University was not provided by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research with the necessary funds to proceed with the installation of its new linear accelerator which would have enabled them to undertake work in an area of nuclear physics hitherto not explored at all in Great Britain.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: The Council for Scientific and Industrial Research considered the request from Glasgow University for £600,000 for a new linear accelerator in relation to other requests for major items of research equipment from universities, and in relation to the funds which they were prepared to allocate for this type of grant. The Council concluded that it could not then accede to the request from Glasgow University.

Mr. Willis: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Principal of Glasgow University has said that this project might well have put Great Britain ahead in this scientific enterprise and that, for lack of funds, we shall now lag behind other countries? Is not this a rather shocking state of affairs?

Mr. Freeth: The hon. Member must realise that my noble Friend must take advice on scientific priorities from his scientific advisers. That is what he has done in this case.

Mr. Lawson: Is it not the case that there was a choice between Glasgow University and Oxford University and that the Department chose Oxford rather than Glasgow?

Mr. Freeth: I think the hon. Member is gravely mis-stating the decision that was taken when he says that Oxford was chosen rather than Glasgow. What was chosen was a project emanating from Oxford rather than a project emanating from Glasgow. In the opinion of my noble Friend's scientific advisers on the Research Council, the Glasgow proposal, though good, was not rated as highly as the proposal which came from Oxford at the same time.

Mr. Albu: On a point of order. May I have your guidance, Mr. Speaker? Why was the Parliamentary Secretary prepared to answer this Question about research grants to universities but not the Question I put down?

Mr. Speaker: I do not understand the point of order that the hon. Member is raising.

Mr. Albu: I ask for your protection and guidance, Mr. Speaker, as to how we can prevent Ministers from transferring Questions in a completely arbitrary manner and apparently according to no rule.

Mr. Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I cannot as the Chair accept any responsibility for transfer.

Mr. Willis: On a point of order. In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the Answer to this Question, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. J. T. Price: Further to that point of order. I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will agree that this is a valid point of order and of some constitutional importance. In reply to a number of recent supplementary questions the Parliamentary Secretary has continually repeated the phrase. "My noble Friend must accept the opinion of the experts". Is this a correct attitude? A Minister is under no obligation to accept anybody's opinion. He is entitled to listen to it with the deepest respect, but for any representative of the Treasury Bench to tell the House that a Minister must accept—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is no point of order whatsoever. I do not have to direct Ministers how to answer or even if they should answer.

Scientists (Employment)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science if he will give an estimate of the number of scientists employed on defence, and of those employed in industry, education, health and other civil services.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hughes: Can the hon. Gentleman give the House an approximate indication of how many are employed on defence and how many on the other services?

Mr. Freeth: Out of a total employment of 173,000 qualified scientists or equivalent in January 1959, which is the latest date for which I have figures, defence took 20,000.

Mr. S. Silverman: Why has not the hon. Gentleman got figures for a later

The most recent estimates relate to January, 1959:—


Field of Employment
Scientists
Engineers
Total


Defence
Not available
Not available
20,000


Private Industry (Notes 1 and 2)
24,254
51,975
76,229


Education
29,080
4,570
33,650


Central Government (Notes 2 and 3)
8,478
10,624
19,102


Total Employment
72,200
100,800
173,000


(Source: "Scientific and Engineering Manpower in Great Britain, 1959 " Cmnd. 902)


NOTE 1: Including building and contracting.


NOTE 2: The estimates relating to defence include scientists and engineers engaged on defence projects in private industry and central government, as well as in the Armed Forces. Separate figures for the health services are not distinguished.

NOTE 3: The A.E.A. is covered by this heading.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Improvement Grants

Mr. K. Lewis: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will take powers to ensure that local authorities which have approved applications for improvement grants do not subsequently withhold payment of such grants.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Dr. Charles Hill): This is not necessary. A local authority is already bound to pay a grant, where a valid application which complies with the statutory requirements is approved.

Mr. Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have a case in my constituency where an officer of the Ketton R.D.C., having approved an application for an improvement grant, has refused to issue the completion certificate for payment? Does he not think that this is a deplorable situation? Will he use

date than 1959? Are not the figures kept up to date?

Mr. Freeth: The difficulty here is not Government employment but employment in private industry. To get all the figures involves a very large amount of work. I do not think that it is worth suggesting that industry should do it every year. However, the figures will be collated again in January, 1962.
Following is the information:
his good offices with a view to getting payment in this case?

Dr. Hill: If my hon. Friend has in mind a case in Stamford, the application was not valid because the owner did not at the time possess the requisite interest in the property. In fact he gave inaccurate information to the council by saying that he was the freeholder. The council's approval was conditional on the production of the title deeds before any work was started. In going ahead before doing this the applicant proceeded at his own peril.

Mr. Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is the first I have heard of this? As I have received a letter from his Department which did not indicate this to me, perhaps the case is different. I cannot think that his original letter and his reply today are on all fours.

Dr. Hill: If my hon. Friend will supply me with the details and so remove any danger of misapprehension, I shall be glad to reply to him.

Evicted Persons (Accommodation)

Mr. Brockway: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will introduce legislation empowering him to provide accommodation for persons evicted from their homes in consequence of the operation of the Rent Act.

Dr. Hill: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave him on 28th November.

Mr. Brockway: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I read that Answer with considerable amazement, as did my borough council? Does he not think that when the Government introduce a Bill leading to evictions, as the Rent Act has done, they should take responsibility for providing accommodation for persons evicted? Is he aware that in Slough in the last few weeks there have been thirteen evictions. Ten of these have been under the Rent Act. There is no accommodation whatsoever to house these families.

Dr. Hill: I recognise the difficulties of Slough, which arise in large part from a shortage of land in the area. I recognise that there is a considerable need for additional housing in the area, despite the fact that 2,500 houses have been built since the war—

Mr. Brockway: Private houses.

Dr. Hill: No. Two thousand, five hundred private houses and 3,720 council houses have been built since the war.

Mr. M. Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of his hon. Friends, namely, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. G. Johnson Smith), in a television programme has urged requisitioning as a cure for the problem of the homeless? Will he adopt the suggestion of my hon. Friend and introduce legislation to give either himself or local authorities the power to requisition to deal with homelessness?

Dr. Hill: I have no such intention.

Housing Programmes

Mrs. Butler: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs how many

housing authorities have now submitted their housing programmes in accordance with Circular 37/61; and what proportion of these authorities have informed him that they are unable to reduce their proposed programmes due to acute and pressing housing needs.

Dr. Hill: Seven hundred, of which three have specifically informed me that they are unable to reduce their proposed programme due to acute and pressing housing needs.

Mrs. Butler: In view of the serious housing shortage and the fact that 90 per cent. of our householders cannot afford to buy houses, is it not evident that any curtailment of council-house building is an economy that the nation cannot afford, particularly as the cuts will not be effective for a considerable time and council-house programmes, once disrupted, cannot easily, if at all, be restarted?

Dr. Hill: I dealt in general with the prospects for next year in the housing debate two or three weeks ago, and I have nothing to add to what I said on that occasion.

Mr. Brockway: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the private houses now being constructed do not provide accommodation for those most in need? Is he aware that the largest company building private houses in Slough says that 90 per cent. of those buying are not resident in Slough, and do not even work there?

Dr. Hill: Of course I am aware, as I made clear a few weeks ago, of the substantial housing problem which confronts the country, and I have nothing to add to what I said on that occasion.

Houses, Edmonton (Compulsory Purchase Orders)

Mr. Albu: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs why the Edmonton Borough Council was refused permission to purchase compulsorily, in accordance with his predecessor's Circular No. 45/60, five houses of which they considered rents had been exorbitantly increased.

Dr. Hill: The two compulsory purchase orders covering these houses were not confirmed because the rents asked by the landlords were not thought to be exorbitant.

Mr. Albu: Is the Minister aware that the rents asked are about four and a half times the gross value, and that, in addition, the landlords impose a condition that tenants must have incomes of at least four times the amount of the rent, plus rates? Is he further aware that most of these people earn about £12 or £16 a week, and that if they are turned out they have absolutely nowhere else to go where they can get houses to rent; and that they are now too old to be allowed to put down the money, even if they had it, to buy a house on mortgage?

Dr. Hill: A typical house of the five mentioned was offered on a lease at £221 a year. I understand from the property company that the words to which the hon. Gentleman refers are being withdrawn, and that the tenants of the five houses are being offered alternative accommodation at considerably cheaper rents.

Mr. Albu: That is complete news to me. Where the right hon. Gentleman gets that information, I do not know. Would he not, however, agree that this shows the extreme value of the Parliamentary Questions that are now being addressed to him? Does he not also think that if powers are given to local authorities, the authorities should be allowed to use them, so that tenants are not put to weeks and weeks of utter misery waiting to find out what is to happen?

Dr. Hill: I warmly agree with the hon. Gentleman on the first point. He says that the information is new to him. It was new to me until this morning. I sought it in order to give a more effective and informative answer to him.

Mr. M. Stewart: If four and a half times the gross value is not exorbitant, what is?

Dr. Hill: The inspector examined the circumstances in detail. He recommended that these were not exorbitant rents, and the Minister accepted the recommendation.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Soft Detergent

Mrs. Slater: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (1) what effect the use of soft detergent has on river pollution; and how far its use could be extended;

(2) if he has considered the fourth progress report of the Standing Technical Committee on Synthetic Detergents; and what recommendations will be made on the extensive use of the soft detergent.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): The Committee reported a reduction in the concentration of synthetic detergent in effluents from sewage works in areas where soft detergent had been sold; but found that the soft detergent now in use did not provide a complete solution and that further improvement was necessary.

Mrs. Slater: Would not the use of soft detergent considerably reduce foam and also the amount of detergent left in sewers? This would be a considerable saving to many local authorities and would help in the working of the sewerage departments. Could not my suggestion be examined to see how far use of soft detergent could be extended in other areas?

Mr. Rippon: The Luton experiment served a valuable purpose in this regard and preliminary investigations have been satisfactory. The Committee found that it could not reach any firm conclusion on the advantages to be gained by replacing the hard detergent by the soft detergent at this stage. More research is necessary. The Committee is pursuing this and I think that we shall have some more information in its next report.

Leicester and Leicestershire (Boundary Commission's Proposals)

Mr. Farr: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs when a public inquiry will be held to investigate objections to the Local Boundary Commission's proposals to merge parts of Leicestershire with the City of Leicester.

Dr. Hill: I cannot give a precise date but I expect to arrange this inquiry in the spring.

Mr. Farr: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have received over 5,000 letters strongly objecting to these proposals? Will he hold the inquiry as soon as possible so that over 20,000 people will have the opportunity of expressing their views through their representatives and be put out of their uncertainty as to whether they will remain in the City or the County of Leicester?

Dr. Hill: The opportunity for objectors will come in due course. The West Midlands investigations, which were the subject of a report before the investigation to which my hon. Friend refers, of themselves involve fifteen public inquiries. So it is not possible to start the inquiry in which my hon. Friend is interested until the spring.

Towns and Cities (Redevelopment)

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he is now prepared to assist local authorities in the financing of the redevelopment of their towns and cities, by enabling them to forgo payment of interest on loans until revenue begins to accrue; and when he will make a statement as to his intentions.

Dr. Hill: Local authorities have power to defer provision for the repayment of loans in respect of expenditure on certain services, but I am advised that it would require legislation to extend this to redevelopment. I would be prepared to consider this when a suitable opportunity arises, but I cannot say when that will be.

Dr. Stross: While, in part, thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his Answer, may I ask whether he remembers that his predecessor—and, certainly, the former Parliamentary Secretary—appeared convinced that this would be a desirable step to take? May I, therefore, urge the right hon. Gentleman, in view of his past professional career, to take steps as soon as possible to see that local authorities have the power to take this opportunity of rebuilding their cities and towns?

Dr. Hill: I had intended my Answer to convey sympathy with the hon. Member's point, but what I cannot say is when it will be possible to introduce any such change.

Mr. K. Robinson: Further to the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross), would the Minister do all he can to help local authorities to escape the clutches of property speculators, who are always lying in wait for an opportunity to develop town centres?

Dr. Hill: That is just a rhetorical question, intended to convey bias rather than to seek information.

Derelict Land

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what amount was expended by local authorities, and what percentage of this sum was contributed by his Department, by way of general grant during 1960, in respect of planting, reclaiming or otherwise improving derelict land; and what additional expenditures and measures are proposed for 1962.

Mr. Rippon: I do not know how much local authorities spend in total on improving derelict land under their various powers. Where it is done under planning powers the expenditure is of a kind that is taken into account in fixing general grant, but it cannot without a great deal of work be isolated from other planning expenditure which is also taken into account. The increased general grants for 1962–63 assumed a 43 per cent. increase in planning expenditure over the level of the previous year.

Mr. Boyden: Is it not most extraordinary that when the Minister of Education has to deal with teachers' salaries he knows precisely how much of the general grant goes in those salaries, but that where it is a matter of urgent reconstruction the hon. Gentleman does not know the figure? Is not his programme almost as bad as that of the Board of Trade, which has done no reclamation or development in the last year, or is he really trying to stimulate an interest in this work?

Mr. Rippon: I do not think that it is at all extraordinary. The local authority associations do not find any difficulty at all in acting on this basis.

CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (QUESTIONS)

Mr. Jay: asked the Prime Minister whether he will arrange for the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to answer Parliamentary Questions.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): The normal arrangement is that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Economic Secretary answer those Questions put down to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for oral answer on a Thursday.

Mr. Jay: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury answers Questions in his own right? As the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is a very important Minister, as a member of the Cabinet and responsible, apparently, for the whole field of public expenditure, should not hon. Members have an opportunity to ask him Questions direct?

The Prime Minister: The only Questions which the Financial Secretary has, by long tradition, answered, are those that deal with the Civil Service, where he is recognised as having a special responsibility. I think that it would be really more satisfactory to keep to the normal rule of putting questions to the Ministerial head of the Department, and for them to be answered as is convenient, according to the subject.

Mr. Jay: As public expenditure is a matter of very great concern to the House, and as the Chief Secretary is a member of the Cabinet and the Financial Secretary is not, should not hon. Members on both sides have the chance to ask Questions of the Chief Secretary who, otherwise, will not appear at Question Time at all?

The Prime Minister: I think that this will work itself out in the most convenient way if Questions are put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It just so happens that there has not been a Thursday recently on which the Treasury Questions have been reached.

Mr. Gaitskell: Would the Prime Minister reconsider this matter? If the Financial Secretary to the Treasury answers Questions in his own right—as, of course, he does—is it not really commonsense that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury should deal with Questions on public expenditure for which he is specifically responsible, and has been made responsible by the Prime Minister himself?

The Prime Minister: I only wish to do what is convenient to the House. If Questions on these particular subjects are put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer they will be answered by the Chief Secretary, but I do not think that, without careful thought, we want to upset the whole arrangements for Questions, because we shall only deprive other hon. Members of opportunities.

PIT CLOSURES, SCOTLAND

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Prime Minister when he received a letter from Kirkcaldy Town Council calling attention to the need for Government action to remedy the effects of the closure of sixteen Scottish pits; and what was the nature of his reply.

The Prime Minister: I received the letter on 27th November. The Kirkcaldy Town Council was told that the terms of the resolution which it had sent to me had been noted.

Mr. Gourlay: Is the Prime Minister aware that this resolution was unanimously approved at a specially convened meeting of the Kirkcaldy Town Council which, politically, is evenly divided? Is he aware that the town council's action underlines the growing apprehension in all sections of the community in Scotland about the future of Scottish collieries? Does he deny that he condones the apparent intention of the Coal Board and the Government to close the Scottish coal fields irrespective of the grave social and economic consequences of such an action?

The Prime Minister: That, of course, is a very large issue. With regard to this particular letter, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not think that I was guilty of any discourtesy in merely acknowledging it. I was informed that


a very long, reasoned reply was being sent by the Minister of Power, and the town council informed me that it was sending a copy of that letter to the hon. Gentleman.

Miss Herbison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is not only the Minister of Power who must be concerned in this business? Is he not aware that every local authority in Scotland is concerned, and that, if there are to be closures, we want alternative industry? Alternative industry involves other Ministers, and the Prime Minister is over all.

The Prime Minister: That process is, of course, going on. As the House was, I think, informed, alternative work will be available within travelling distance of their homes for the great majority of the miners affected by these closures.

NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION AND WARSAW PACT

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with President Kennedy with regard to the President's recent proposal for a non-aggression pact between the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and Warsaw Pact countries.

The Prime Minister: In the reports that I have seen of the interview that President Kennedy gave to the Editor of Izvestia the President said this:
I think it would be helpful if N.A.T.O. and the Warsaw Pact engaged in a commitment to live in peace with each other. I certainly believe we should take every conceivable step to prevent surprise attack".
Any discussions which I may have with President Kennedy would of course be confidential. But when we meet again later this month we shall continue our discussions about the international situation and, naturally, all the important current problems will be covered.

Mr. Henderson: Would not the Prime Minister agree that the signing of a non-aggression pact between the N.A.T.O. Powers and the Warsaw Pact Powers would be a useful contribution to the reduction of East-West tension and the

building up of European security? May we take it that Her Majesty's Government will support this proposal by President Kennedy?

The Prime Minister: The signing of a pact is not in itself important, although it may be valuable. What is important, and I hope we shall work at it, is trying to get a negotiation on Berlin, then, gradually, the possibility of getting a settlement of wider questions and then, in the terms of the President's proposal, we might be in a position to get some sense of security into Europe.

Mr. H. Wilson: Is the Prime Minister aware that many of us feel—as I am sure he does himself—that the President's interview with Izvestia gave a very welcome leadership to the West and one that was long-awaited on this as well as on other issues? On this issue, would the Prime Minister, in advance of his meeting with the President, say that he agrees with and endorses the words used by President Kennedy in respect of an agreement between the two pact organisations?

The Prime Minister: President Kennedy carefully avoided the use of the word "pact" and I must remind the House—as I have been reminding myself by reading the history of the years immediately before the last war—that there were more pacts signed by everyone on every conceivable subject, from the Kellogg Pact onwards. What we want is a basis on which the President's proposals can become effective.

Mr. Wilson: That was interesting, but would be Prime Minister now answer the question whether he, in advance of his very important meeting with the President, agrees with the words used by President Kennedy on that occasion which, as he said, made no reference to the word "pact"? Does he agree with those words?

The Prime Minister: Yes, of course. President Kennedy said:
… it would be helpful if N.A.T.O. and the Warsaw Pact engaged in a commitment to live in peace with each other.
I am sure it is. He went on to say:
I certainly believe we should take every conceivable step to prevent surprise attack.


This is one of the essentials, and he continued:
… if the relations between our countries can be normalised, there will be less military buildup on both sides; but we cannot now withdraw our troops from Europe, way back across the Atlantic Ocean, when you "—
the Russians—
merely withdraw your troops to the Soviet Union which is only a few hundred miles away.
That is why we need some understanding of what the situation will be in Berlin, Europe and Germany. With all that, I think that all hon. Members would be in agreement.

Mr. Grimond: Would not the Prime Minister agree that the settlement of Berlin may itself depend on some wider settlement in Eastern Europe? When the President speaks of commitments and the Prime Minister speaks of finding a basis for peace, what can this mean except some form of agreement or pact covering the area?

The Prime Minister: I do not want to be drawn into a discussion of how we should now best approach what is a very difficult and may become a critical situation. Myself, I feel and hope that we shall soon be in a position to make a fruitful negotiation. Exactly its extent and how and where it should begin and end must be a matter first of agreement with the Western Powers, and then we can see how the negotiation can proceed.

SECURITY (H.M.S. "DREADNOUGHT")

Mr. Short: asked the Prime Minister what review of security arrangements he has ordered as a consequence of the recent evidence on security concerning the atomic reactor in H.M.S. "Dreadnought", details of which have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central.

The Prime Minister: None, Sir. The security of H.M.S. "Dreadnought" has not been compromised nor are her security arrangements unsatisfactory.

Mr. Short: Yes, but is the Prime Minister aware that, much as I dislike his Government, I am not trying to embarrass him on this question? Is he not aware of the importance of the

allegations made on 2nd June by Senator Clinton Anderson, which have just been revealed, and which should be cleared up; allegations in which he said that American secrets of submarine nuclear propulsion had gone from this country to Russia? Would the Prime Minister be a bit more forthcoming about that, and say whether the Radcliffe Committee has yet reported to him and, if so, whether it has considered this specific matter?

The Prime Minister: There are three parts to that supplementary question. First, much as he may dislike me, I do not dislike him at all.

Mr. Short: I did not say that.

The Prime Minister: Me and my colleagues. I do not dislike him or his colleagues at all. On the second part, there was no evidence at all. On the contrary, the hon. Gentleman sent me a Press report consisting of a denial by the United States authorities of an assumption made by the United States senator in question. On the third part, I hope to make a statement before Christmas after considering the Report of the Radcliffe Committee. I will be in touch with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition as to the best moment for making that statement.

INDUSTRIAL HEALTH

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Prime Minister if he will consider the appointment of a Secretary for Industrial Health and the establishment of a new department to promote and administer a comprehensive occupational health service.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Pavitt: In spite of the good work being done by the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Health, may I ask whether the Prime Minister is aware that there are still two or three people killed every working day and that fifty-six times more people are absent from work through illness than through strikes? According to Parkinson's Law, if one divides things between two Ministries one gets little advance. Perhaps the Prime Minister will consider doing the same as was done for the Department of Technical Co-operation, and combine two Ministries in this way?

The Prime Minister: I am anxious to make all the progress we can. I do not wish to stand in the way for purely administrative reasons, and I will discuss this matter further with the Minister of Labour to see by what means he thinks further progress can be made.

OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS (CLASSIFICATION)

Commander Kerans: asked the Prime Minister whether he will take steps to review the arrangements for the classification of official documents in Government Departments.

The Prime Minister: This is one aspect of our security procedures, all of which have recently been under review by the Radcliffe Committee.

Commander Kerans: Will not my right hon. Friend agree that there is a terrible tendency in most Government Departments to overgrade documents, and will he look into the matter and advise Departments to downgrade wherever possible, which would lead to fewer incidents than has been the case in the past?

The Prime Minister: I will consider this matter in connection with the Report.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY, NORTH OF SCOTLAND

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that trade and industry in the North of Scotland are suffering as a result of the lack of co-ordination between the policies of Her Majesty's Government with regard to transport and trade, respectively, in that area; and if he will direct the Secretary of State for Scotland, the President of the Board of Trade, and the Ministers of Aviation, Labour and Transport to consult together as to the best means of encouraging trade, industry and labour to the North of Scotland.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friends concerned always maintain the closest consultation in implementing the Government's policy of steering industry into development districts like the North

of Scotland; so no special direction by me is necessary.

Mr. Hughes: Will the Prime Minister look down from his great eminence on the conflicts that are going on between the Ministers mentioned in the Question and the immediate chaos of trade, industry and employment in the North of Scotland, and take urgent steps to resolve the conflict so that full employment may be achieved?

The Prime Minister: I cannot accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's premises and, therefore, I cannot accept his conclusion. As he knows, in the area of Aberdeen the rate of unemployment for the three months ending November was 2·9 per cent. compared with 3 per cent. in the previous year.

DR. ADENAUER (MEETING)

Mr. Warbey: asked the Prime Minister whether, in his forthcoming discussions with Dr. Adenauer, he will propose that, in the forthcoming negotiations with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the question of future security arrangements in Central Europe shall be discussed as well as the Berlin situation.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister to what extent, in his forthcoming meeting with Dr. Adenauer, he proposes to convey to the German Chancellor the concern in Great Britain about the growth of the German armed forces and the proposals made in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to arm Germany with nuclear weapons.

Mr. M. Foot: asked the Prime Minister whether, in forthcoming discussions with Dr. Adenauer, he will express clear British opposition to any proposals made in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation for the establishment of a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation nuclear deterrent and the supply of nuclear weapons to West Germany.

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) on 28th November.

Mr. Warbey: Yes, but can the Prime Minister say whether the Government


accept the policy impressed on them by Dr. Adenauer and the N.A.T.O. military chiefs that it is better to keep Berlin and Germany divided with all the fateful consequences of such a policy rather than to accept any form of arms control or disengagement in Central Europe?

The Prime Minister: As to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementry question, I cannot accept his statement and, therefore, I would not discuss the value of the policy which he alleges has been accepted.

Mr. Hughes: Can the Prime Minister say if the supply of nuclear weapons to Germany is now the policy of Her Majesty's Government? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that concern is growing in the country about the increased military organisations and the military strength in Germany?

The Prime Minister: With regard to the second part of that supplementary question, German armaments are in accordance with policies agreed both under the Brussels Treaty and N.A.T.O. With regard to nuclear weapons, no nuclear warheads are under German control.

Mr. M. Foot: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that President Kennedy recently made a new declaration on this subject in his interview with Izvestia, that Dr Adenauer has made a report to his Parliament on the subject—a report which seems to contradict what has been said by President Kennedy—and does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is his duty to give to the British House of Commons as full a report on this matter as Dr. Adenauer has given to the German Parliament?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. In the present situation—I ask for some forbearance from the House—I think that the best contribution that our country can make is to play its rôle in these preliminary discussions and hope that they will lead to fruitful negotiations.

Mr. Gaitskell: Reverting to Question No. Q8, has the Prime Minister abandoned for the, as we hope, forthcoming discussions on Berlin any idea that a zone of controlled disarmament should be introduced? Is not this one of the most fruitful ideas, and one which he

discussed with Mr. Khrushchev some time ago? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is strong support for this idea in the country?

The Prime Minister: I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that, when I discussed that with Mr. Khrushchev and published it jointly with him, it was part of a larger peace plan as a whole.

Mr. Gaitskell: Nevertheless, is it not a fact that in the communiqué to which, no doubt, the right hon. Gentleman was referring, it was stated that both he and Mr. Khrushchev agreed that the plan was well worth further study, and we have always been trying to find out when that further study was to be given to it?

The Prime Minister: The point was that it was to be part of a larger settlement. I am asked now whether I will state what proposals we shall put forward. I ask again for the forbearance of the House. The first thing to do is to try to get through the immediate Berlin problem and crisis. To do that we want to reach a joint Western position. We must then enter into negotiations. The negotiations may be difficult and prolonged, or they may be much easier than we think. We may be able to widen them into something more fruitful or we may have to rest content in the first stages with a narrower agreement. What we want to do is to remove the sense of crisis and try to get at least the beginning of some settlement. I honestly ask the House to allow the Government to play their rôle as best they think in trying to arrive at this result.

Mr. H. Wilson: I think we all understand the Prime Minister's request for forbearance, but is he aware that, although we all welcome what he has just said about the factual situation in relation to nuclear arms for Germany, namely, that they do not have them, is he aware that we should all welcome from him a clear statement—which would not in any way tie his hands—that Her Majesty's Government will oppose any change in that situation and will insist that nuclear arms be not given to Germany?

The Prime Minister: Her Majesty's Government can play their part so far as they have power under the Brussels Treaty, under which, as the right hon.


Gentleman well knows, the Germans are precluded from the manufacture of nuclear arms. That, therefore, is within the power of Her Majesty's Government as signatory to the Treaty. On other questions, it is a matter not of power but of influence.

Mr. S. Silverman: Does not the Prime Minister realise that, although we all understand the limits affecting one ally in consultation with other allies, what the House would like is an expression of the Prime Minister's own opinion on this matter? In view of his reference to the agreements under which German armaments were allowed and to the fact that under those agreements nuclear weapons were not permitted, could not the right hon. Gentleman give one word of reassurance to the House that Her Majesty's Government are at this moment opposed to any alteration of those agreements which would result in the German forces having control of nuclear weapons?

The Prime Minister: This is where there has been so much misunderstanding and mis-statement in the country. The Germans do not have control of the nuclear war heads. There has been great pressure that their forces should be less well armed than those of their allies. That I believe to be impossible in any military formation; they must have the same armaments as the formations working by their side. Control of the warheads which are given to them by the American Government lies in the hands of the American Government alone.

Mr. Grimond: But will the Prime Minister at least agree that any building up of nuclear arms in Germany which led to the impression that forces in Germany were becoming more and more dependent on nuclear arms rather than conventional arms would create the worst possible atmosphere for starting the sort of negotiations of which he has spoken?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman realises what are the actual formation and military arrangements by which the tactical nuclear weapons are held. So far as the N.A.T.O. authorities wish them and have agreed that they should be held, there is no distinction made between the

various allied countries in N.A.T.O. What remains is the control of their use, which, in the case of these weapons where the warhead is nuclear, lies with the American Government.

EGYPT (COMPENSATION AGREEMENT)

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. HIRST: To ask the Lord Privy Seal whether Her Majesty's Government have yet been able to provide for increased interim payments of compensation to British subjects whose property in the United Arab Republic has been Egyptionised or suffered loss or damage while under sequestration.

Mr. WALL: TO ask the Lord Privy Seal what increases it is proposed to authorise the Foreign Compensation Commission to make in the interim payments to British subjects whose property in Egypt was Egyptianised or suffered loss or damage while under sequestration.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I will now answer Questions Nos. 70 and 71 together.
A new Foreign Compensation (Egypt) (Interim Distribution) (Amendment) Order was laid before the House yesterday. Its Schedule sets out the following new scale for the payment of compensation to those claimants whose property was either taken over by the Egyptian Government or suffered loss or damage while under sequestration:

90 per cent. on the first £5,000 of each claim;
60 per cent. on the next £45,000 of each claim;
35 per cent. on the next £450,000 of each claim;
20 per cent. on all amounts over £500,000.

This Order, which supersedes the scale laid down in the Order of 30th November, 1960, comes into force today. The increases for which it provides apply to all claims which can properly be made against the Egyptian Compensation Fund, whether already assessed,


or still to be assessed, by the Foreign Compensation Commission.

Mr. Hirst: I thank my right hon. Friend for what he has said, but is he aware that the sum of money appears to be a good deal too small out of the sum available? Can he give any information as to the total payment which this entails on top of the £6 million already paid out? Does he realise that these tedious and halting steps towards repayment, though welcome, are really painful, and, having in mind the Prime Minister's speech in the House when he did not rule out larger sums being available if the fund was not sufficient to liquidate the debts, will my right hon. Friend accept that a more venturesome policy could be indulged in?

Mr. Heath: Eight and a half million pounds have so far been paid by the Foreign Compensation Commission. These new rates will increase that sum considerably. As there is still a considerable number of claims for loss on sequestration to come in as the property is being desequestrated, it is not possible to estimate exactly what the total amount paid at these new rates will be. I cannot give my hon. Friend an exact figure. What I have said goes as far as we can go at the moment.

Mr. W. Yates: Is the Lord Privy Seal aware of the statement made by the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer that, if the sums of money available were not adequate to meet these claims, Her Majesty's Government would see that they were met properly?

Mr. Heath: Yes, I am well aware of that statement, and, of course, Her Majesty's Government adhere to it; but we cannot yet foresee what the total amount will be. Until desequestration is nearly at its end, it will not be possible to do so.

CONGO (SITUATION, KATANGA)

Mr. A. Henderson: Mr. A. Henderson (by Private Notice) asked the Lord Privy Seal whether, in view of the criticism yesterday by Mr. Tshombe of the United Nations and its Secretary-General, he will make a statement on the further deterioration in the Congo.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath): The situation in the Katanga has deteriorated in the past week. Incidents which have taken place have resulted in casualties on both sides. The Katangans are believed by the United Nations to be holding a number of United Nations Service men and civilians, although they have only admitted to Her Majesty's Consul to holding one. The United Nations deny that they hold any Katanga gendarmes.
Her Majesty's Consul has told Mr. Kimba on his own initiative that he hopes that any prisoners held will be released at once. He has since repeated this at the request of the United Nations. I have seen reports of Mr. Tshombe's speech in Paris on 4th December and I very much regret the intemperate nature of some of his remarks.
There are now reports from the Katanga that fighting has broken out again. The extent of this is not clear. The United Nations civil authorities, after announcing that they had discovered a Katanga "battle plan", said that in the circumstances they had handed over control to their military colleagues. I have instructed our representative at New York to make immediate inquiries about this. Her Majesty's Government will continue their efforts to lower the tension in every way open to them.

Mr. Henderson: In view of the allegations made yesterday by Dr. O'Brien, would the Lord Privy Seal clarify the Government's policy on these two points? Is it their intention to work towards the recognition of Katanga as an independent republic? Or is it their policy to give the fullest support to the new United Nations Secretary-General in his efforts to secure a peaceful settlement of this problem by implementation of the resolutions of 21st February and 24th November in the General Assembly?

Mr. Heath: Her Majesty's Government's policy in the Congo has been made absolutely plain on a very large number of occasions—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—by my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary at the United Nations, by the British delegate at the United Nations in each of the debates, and by myself here in the House of Commons, and in the country during the events in September when the House was not


sitting. It is that the Congo should remain within its present frontiers as a united country. That we have always emphasised. Whatever constitutional arrangements there may be within those frontiers is a matter for those in the Congo to settle themselves. We believe that they should be given every help in settling them. I think that that answers the right hon. and learned Gentleman's first point.
In answer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's second point, Her Majesty's Government have supported the resolutions of the United Nations and made their position plain. When they have had reservations, the British delegate at the United Nations has explained those reservations. We have, in fact, supported the United Nations in carying out its resolutions. On 17th October we debated the events of September in the House. I gave a very full account of those events and Her Majesty's Government's attitude towards them. I pointed out then that what was at stake was not the question of implementing the resolutions, but whether those in the Congo had exceeded the authority which they had under the resolutions. That is a quite separate question. Her Majesty's Government have supported the resolutions.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Would it not be quite wrong for the United Nations again to try to suppress the aspirations of the Katangan people? Is it not clear, that, if the United Nations forces were not there, there would be no conflict? However, taking the position as it is, is my right hon. Friend aware that Her Majesty's Government will have the full support of this country in anything that they can do for conciliation?

Mr. Heath: Her Majesty's Government have made it plain that they believe that force should be used in the Congo only in the last resort and to prevent civil war among those there. That is Her Majesty's Government's policy, and we adhere to it.

Mr. H. Wilson: While endorsing what the right hon. Gentleman said in deploring the terms of Mr. Tshombe's recent speech, and also his concern about the very serious deterioration in the situation in Katanga now that the Katangan forces seem to be completely out of control, may I ask him whether

he is aware that we feel that the Government have still quite a lot to explain to this House, particularly the statement of the British representative to the Security Council, our vote on the resolution and a number of other allegations, including those referred to by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson)? Would the right hon. Gentleman consider either making a fuller statement, or asking the Leader of the House whether we could have Government time to debate this matter more fully in the near future?
In advance of that, would the right hon. Gentleman clear up one matter which is causing concern, namely, whether it is a fact that Her Majesty's Government's Vice-Consul in Elisabethville is also a member of the Ministry of External Affairs of the Central African Republic?

Mr. Heath: Since the right hon. Gentleman is speaking for the first time in his new capacity on the Opposition Front Bench, may I congratulate him on his new post? I must say that I do not understand the point of the last part of his question. I dealt with the last resolution in the United Nations at considerable length last Wednesday at Question Time, during Questions on the Congo.
The right hon. Gentleman's request for a debate is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who has heard what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Fell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, if some of the African gendarmerie in Elisabethville have been out of control recently, it is a direct result of the policy of getting rid of the so-called mercenaries and white officers of the forces? In so far as they supported this policy at the United Nations, Her Majesty's Government must take some responsibility in this matter.
Is it really fair to ascribe the word "intemperate" to the terms of the speech made by Mr. Tshombe when Mr. Tshombe and his Government see their whole country being wrecked by the United Nations' adventures in Katanga? They are, in fact, in a state of war with the United Nations, which has invaded them once and has been responsible for the uprising of the Balubas, and so on.


Therefore, are we immediately going to withdraw our supply of money for this force in Katanga?

Mr. Heath: Concerning the situation about the gendarmerie, we have not yet been able to get any direct information from our own officials in the Congo or from the United Nations about the situation in Katanga this afternoon. Therefore, I do not propose to comment on that aspect of the situation. I do not think—and here I believe that the House will agree with me—that this serious situation will be helped by intemperate language from any quarter.
I much regret that there should have been language of the type used by Mr. Tshombe in his speech. It is again indicative of the very high tension which exists in Katanga and other parts of the Congo at the moment, which is why Her Majesty's Government have been devoting all their efforts to trying to bring about a meeting between Mr. Tshombe and Mr. Adoula in order to lower the tension and to reach a settlement of the constitutional problem.

Mr. Warbey: In view of the fact that Mr. Tshombe and the Katangan authorities are now in full and flagrant defiance of the United Nations, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the Government will desist from weakening the United Nations in carry-

ing out the decisions of the Security Council and will henceforth give the United Nations full support in carrying out whatever actions may be necessary to ensure that those decisions are executed?

Mr. Heath: I must completely repudiate the hon. Gentleman's remark about Her Majesty's Government's policy.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Can the Lord Privy Seal tell us what protests were made by Her Majesty's Consul in Elisabethville to Mr. Tshombe against the continued incitement to violence which he has carried out over recent weeks, particularly the speech inciting the people to all-out war against the United Nations which preceded by one day the attack on Mr. Ivan Smith and Mr. Urquhart?

Mr. Heath: Her Majesty's Consul in Elisabethville has throughout used his influence in the cause of conciliation. He has been doing it untiringly. We have complete confidence in him. Moreover, there have been a number of occasions in recent months when Her Majesty's Consul has been the only form of "go-between" between the United Nations and the Government in Katanga. The United Nations has asked him to carry out functions for that purpose. We have complete confidence in him.

NORTH ATLANTIC SHIPPING ACT, 1961 (REPEAL)

3.49 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to repeal the North Atlantic Shipping Act, 1961.
It was said sadly by a distinguished King's Counsel when hearing his first Admiralty case as President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division, "I hope that there will be no moaning by the Bar when I put out to sea." I humbly echo that hope.
Although we were at one time a great maritime nation, with a great Atlantic fleet under British command, and although there was a day when all of us must have felt the salt in our blood and
longed for a tall ship and a star to steer her by,
I must confess that my most adventurous journey on the Atlantic was an unpremeditated and completely involuntary one made by dinghy, which almost caused a by-election.
My only journey across the Atlantic on a "Queen" was, unhappily, made at a time when the "Queen Mary" had not been refitted after the war, when it was completely denuded of all forms of equipment, with no taps, doorknobs, hooks, and so on, most of which were wandering around space as memories and memorials, when we were accommodated in a doorless dormitory and I was awakened at 4 a.m. by a respectable and grey-haired lady holding my hand and inquiring anxiously if I was saved. I replied brutally and inaccurately that I was, and I still have some regret at the disappointment that she was occasioned.
Of course, this is unfair to the Cunard Company. I am one of those who feel that the Cunard Company has been very unfairly treated. Whatever may be thought of the original proposal, there is no justification for all that has occurred. The Cunard Company is left with the melancholy realisation that when Her Majesty's Government were smiling benevolently upon them, their shares and their shareholders were both jittery. Now that Her Majesty's Government have turned their face to the other

side, a measure of equilibrium has been restored.
Perhaps I might briefly explain the financial implications of the Measure which I propose. The North Atlantic Shipping Act provided for the allocation of a total sum of £18 million from public funds, of which £14¾ million was to be on the "Kathleen Mavourneen "—" it may be for years, and it may be for ever "—and £3¼ million was in the form of a pourboire.
If we limit our discussion to the £3¼ million which immediately becomes available for any purpose, it is, even in the present day, no small sum. At present rates, it would purchase half a dozen Rembrandts or about 30 Jimmy Greaves. It would provide 100 luxury flats under the present Government, or 2,000 working-class houses under a Labour Government. It could buy 250 tons of caviare for the general and leave some money for a necklace for his wife. What is more important, it could provide the penicillin which could save 15 million children crippled by yaws, or provide research into the causes and control of onchocerciasis and tripanosomiasis which might save millions of people from blindness.
I apprehend, however, in referring to this matter, that the decision of the House was that the money should be used to help merchant shipping. My hon. Friends who represent the shipbuilding constituencies, and hon. Members on the other side, some of whom made almost a declaration of interest that they had secured their election by promising two "Queens", and who may now wish to promise something else, have made a case for the shipping industry. No one really doubts that there is a case.
I am one of those who have never been convinced that the necessity of maritime supremacy involved the provision of huge liners. I think in terms of merchant shipping and of tankers, not perhaps in terms of Quinquireme of Nineveh from distant Ophir, but rather of the
Dirty British coaster with a salt-caked smoke stack,
Butting through the Channel in the mad March days,
With a cargo of Tyne coal,
Road-rail, pig-lead,
Firewood, iron-ware, and cheap tin trays.


All the available modern evidence is in favour of that proposition. If we take the most rapidly expanded maritime nation in the world—Liberia—we find that she has no large liners and, indeed, very few large ports. The largest individually controlled and the most prosperous merchant fleet in the world is owned by Mr. Onassis, a man who is certainly no Tom Bowling, because his interests are so extensive that they embrace even grand opera. His best known ship is a yacht. As far as I am aware, he has comparatively few ships of the very large tonnage envisaged by the Act.
We all know that the Act is dead. At the conclusion of the Third Reading debate on the Measure, which obtained the support of only one-fifth of the Members of the House in the Lobby, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport talked gaily of the maiden voyage and the safety of the passengers on board. We were told that John Brown had allocated a berth for the building of the ship. We know now that this other body of John Brown lies "a'mouldering in the grave" and that the time has come when the Act should be repealed.
I have no desire today to say anything controversial, or to indulge in polemics. There is, however, one other aspect of the matter. No one is quite sure how the Bill was begotten. I find some historical sympathy with the desire of the Government to treat their unpremeditated election pledges rather as Charles James Fox used to treat his gambling debts: a matter of priority over more solid engagements. All the available evidence seems to suggest that the origin of the Act was an unpremeditated observation by the Prime Minister on a gay election night in Glasgow, when he was reported as having promised two "Queens". That may, of course, have been a stutter, but it does not seem to have been disputed that he promised one. But there is a point when this House should try to remember that the promises made in the pre-election prosperity period have to be carried out, if they are to be carried out at all, in the post-election economic crisis.
I do not want to say anything unkind. I wondered whether I might make my point by recording an example from

French local government. I recall the French village after the war that was devastated by explosions and war damage to the extent that it was isolated, the bridge was down, the road was up and the commercial activity of this charming village had been brought almost to an end. A Left-wing maire, with the help of a devoted highway surveyor, tackled the job. The years went by, but it still was not complete.
There came an election. A highly respected local worthy, noted for his interest in le sport, was invited to stand for the mairie and was elected. Only after the election vote was it recalled—the cognoscenti certainly recalled—that his devotion to sport meant that amongst his lares and penates he possessed five sporting guns, four fishing rods and three mistresses, on all of whom he lavished devoted care, rubbing some of them over with an oily rag every day, and treating the others after their fashion.
The inevitable result was that when the woods had been restocked with game, the rivers with fish and the mistresses with mink, there was no money left to repair the road. The highway surveyor was left lonely in his office writing a definitive life of John Macadam and the solitary hotel was almost unapproachable, still boasting proudly the little notice "lci a dormi Selwyn Lloyd". under which an irreverent gamin had written, in blue chalk, "et n'a jamais réveilé".
I ask the Leader of the House to allow me to introduce this important Measure. I hope that if leave is accorded, when I advance to the Table the House will imagine me at least as accompanied by the unspoken but moving words of Kipling and the music of Elgar:
Come back Unity, Claribel, Assyrian. Stormcock and Golden Gain

Mr. Speaker: The Question is, That the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) be given leave to bring in a Bill—the principles of which he has been explaining—to repeal the North Atlantic Shipping Act, 1961.

4.1 p.m.

Sir John Vaughan-Morgan: I rise to oppose the Motion. First, I should like to say with what difficulty I follow the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), who has spoken with


his usual wit, cogency and rapidity. I can at least claim that I shall speak a little slower. The House must be very grateful and deeply moved to think that we have been allowed this witty speech only because the hon. Member was saved from both the dinghy and the grey-haired lady. Though it satisfied you Mr. Speaker, I thought that the hon. Member gave singularly few reasons for moving his Motion. If I may, I shall fill in any gaps that he left.
In all seriousness, this proposed Bill should not be given priority over other Private Members' Bills. First, the hon. Member means it as a serious Measure and I think it fair to say that it will probably be opposed. Secondly, is it right that private Members' time, of which there is all too little, should be used to frustrate or nullify the Government's intentions?

Mr. John Rankin: What are they?

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: Is it right when, as in this case, events in the shape of the Board of the Cunard Company have, fortunately in my view, done it for us.
I must also say that I think it ill becomes the Opposition to urge the repeal of the Act. They failed to oppose it on either Second Reading or Third Reading, with one or two honourable but unofficial exceptions, one of whom, of course, was the lone-star Liberal Leader. On the occasion of Second Reading, the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) made a very telling and forceful speech and then failed to take his legions into the Lobby. His remarkable denunciation of the Bill followed by no vote was a classic example of Vauxhall et praeterea nihil. It is fortunate that the right hon. Gentleman did not divide the House, because hon. Members like myself would have found ourselves in a considerable dilemma.
It is an open secret that many of us dislike the Act intensely, but we could not vote against it because of an election pledge. We found ourselves hamstrung in action because of this millstone of an election pledge round our necks—if I may mix my metaphors. We were unhappy at the course of events which led the Government to implement their

pledge, which was, I remind the House, to support the replacement of the "Queen" liner.

Mr. Rankin: It was not. It was two "Queens."

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: But one cannot support a replacement if there is no replacement.
My hon. Friends who dislike the Act need have no fear. The Act is as dead as the dodo. There will be no Q.3 and if there is a Q.4 its building will not take place under the provisions of the Act. The days of the begging bowl are over. My hon. Friends can contrast the speech of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when winding up the Second Reading of the North Atlantic Shipping Bill, as it then was, with the remarks he made on 26th July, when he said that he saw no reason ahead for more assistance to private industry.
I, for one, welcome that conversion. This Act, unloved, unhonoured and un-implemented, will eventually be revised into oblivion. Let it for the moment remain on the Statute Book. Despite all the work of those whose job it is to consolidate and revise our Statutes, the Statute Book contains a large number of Measures which have fallen into honourable desuetude. They are what I would call "statutory layabouts."
In browsing through one volume only of the Statutes I have found plenty of examples. There is the Act of 1711 giving the Electress Sophia and her descendants precedence over the Archbishop of Canterbury. There is also the Act of 1754 for taking away mortuaries in the Archdeaconry of Chester and, most surprising of all, the Act of 1765 declaring the colonies and plantations in North America subordinate to and dependent upon the Imperial Crown and Parliament, a matter which ought to be at least investigated before the Bermuda Summit meeting.
These Acts resemble the ruins and follies which sometimes decorate the parks of the stately homes of England, and this Act qualifies on both counts. It was a folly and it is a ruin. There are ample precedents for not approving this Motion, but I think that the most


important reason of all is that we should be very jealous of any abuse or misuse of private Members' time.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 12 (Motions for leave to bring

Division No. 17.]
AYES
4.8 p.m


Abse, Leo
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Pargiter, G. A.


Ainsley, William
Healey, Denis
Parker, John


Albu, Austen
Henderson, Rt.Hn. Arthur(RwlyRegis)
Paton, John


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Pavitt, Laurence


Awbery, Stan
Holman, Percy
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Holt. Arthur
Pentland, Norman


Blyton, William
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Bowles, Frank
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Prentice, R. E.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Probert, Arthur


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hunter, A. E.
Rankin, John


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Reid, William


Callaghan, James
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Jeger, George
Robinson,Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Chapman, Donald
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)


Cliffe, Michael
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield)
Skeffington, Arthur


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Slater, Mrs Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Davies,Rt.Hn.Clement (Montgomery)
Kelley, Richard
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Kenyon, Clifford
Sorensen, R. w.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Ledger, Ron
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Deer, George
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Stonehouse, John


Delargy, Hugh
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham. N.)
Stones, William


Diamond, John
Lipton, Marcus
Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)


Dodds, Norman
Logan, David
Swingler, Stephen


Driberg, Tom
Loughlin, Charles
Symonds, J. B.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
MacColl, James
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
McInnes, James
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Edelman, Maurice
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda. W.)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
McLeavy, Frank
Thorpe, Jeremy


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Wade, Donald


Evans, Albert
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Warbey, William


Finch, Harold
Manuel, A. C.
Watkins, Tudor


Fitch, Alan
Mapp, Charles
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Fletcher, Eric
Marsh, Richard
White, Mrs. Eirene


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Mason, Roy
Whitlock, William


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mayhew, Christopher
Wilkins, W. A.


Forman, J. C.
Mitchison, G. R.
Willey, Frederick


Ginsburg, David
Monslow, Walter
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Gooch, E. G.
Moody, A. S.
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Greenwood, Anthony
Moyle, Arthur
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Grey, Charles
Mulley, Frederick
Woof, Robert


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Neal, Harold
Wyatt, Woodrow


Grimond, J.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Gunter, Ray
Noel-Baker, Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)



Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Oliver, G. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Oram, A. E.
Mr. Sydney Silverman and


Hannan, William
Owen, Will
Mr. Hale.




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Bourne-Arton, A.
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)


Allason, James
Box, Donald
Cary, Sir Robert


Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Channon, H. P. G.


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Boyle, Sir Edward
Chataway, Christopher


Atkins, Humphrey
Braine, Bernard
Chichester-Clark, R.


Balniel, Lord
Brewis, John
Clark, William (Nottingham. S.)


Barber, Anthony
Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.Sir Walter
Cleaver, Leonard


Barlow, Sir John
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Cole, Norman


Barter, John
Brooman-White, R.
Cooke, Robert


Batsford, Brian
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Corfield, F. V.


Bell, Ronald
Bryan, Paul
Costain, A. P.


Bence, Cyril
Buck, Antony
Coulson, J. M.


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Bullard, Denys
Craddock, Sir Beresford


Berkeley, Humphry
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Critchley, Julian


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Burden, F. A.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver


Biffen, John
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Cullen, Mrs. Alice


Bishop, F. P.
Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Cunningham, Knox


Black, Sir Cyril
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Curran, Charles


Bossom, Clive
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Currie, G. B. H.

in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 140, Noes 281.

Dalkeith, Earl of
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Ramsden, James


Dance, James
Kerans, Cdr. J. s.
Rawlinson, Peter


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kimball, Marcus
Rees, Hugh


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Kitson, Timothy
Rees Davies, W. R.


Doughty, Charles
Lagden, Godfrey
Renton, David


Drayson, G. B.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Duncan, Sir James
Leburn, Gilmour
Ridsdale, Julian


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Elliott,R.W.(Nwcstle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Robson Brown, Sir William


Emery, Peter
Lindsay, Martin
Roots, William


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Litchfield, Capt. John
Russell, Ronad


Farr, John
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
St. Clair, M.


Finlay, Graeme
Longbottom, Charles
Sandys, Rt- Hon. Duncan


Fisher, Nigel
Longden, Gilbert
Scott-Hopkins, James


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Loveys, Walter H.
Seymour, Leslie


Foster, John
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Sharples, Richard


Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Shaw, M.


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Short, Edward


Freeth, Denzil
McAdden, Stephen
Simon, Rt, Hon. Sir Jocelyn


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
McLaren, Martin
Skeet, T. H. H.


Galpern, Sir Myer
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Gammans, Lady
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Maclean, SirFitzroy(Bute&amp;N. Ayrs.)
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher


Gibson-Watt, David
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Gilmour, Sir John
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Speir, Rupert


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Maddan, Martin
Stevens, Geoffrey


Godber, J. B.
Maginnis, John E.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Goodhart, Philip
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.



Goodhew, Victor
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Stodart, J. A.


Gower, Raymond
Marlowe, Anthony
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Storey, Sir Samuel


Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.
Marshal, Douglas
Studholme, Sir Henry


Green, Alan
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Gresham Cooke, R-
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Tapsell, Peter


Grimston, Sir Robert
Mawby, Ray
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Gurden, Harold
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maydon, Lt-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Mills, Stratton
Teeling, William


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W)
Men gomery, Fergus
Temple, John M.


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Morrison, John
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter


Hastings, Stephen
Nabarro, Gerald
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Hay, John
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Heald, Rt. Hon. sir Lionel
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Timmons, John


Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward
Noble, Michael
Turner, Colin


Hendry, Forbes
Nugent, Sir Richard
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Orr, Capt. L. P S.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hiley, Joseph
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Vane, w. M. F.


Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Vickers, Miss Joan


Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Hocking, Philip N.
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Walder, David


Holland, Philip
Partridge, E.
Walker, Peter


Hollingworth, John
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Wall, Patrick


Hopkins, Alan
Peel, John
Ward, Dame Irene


Hornby, R. P.
Plokthiorn, Sir Kenneth
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Homsby-Smlth, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

Webster, David


Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
PilKington, Sir Richard
Whitelaw, William


Hughes-Young, Michael
Pitman, Sir James
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Hurd, Sir Anthony
Pitt, Miss Edith
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Popplewell, Ernest
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Iremonger, T. L.
Pott, Percivall
Wise, A. R.


Irvine. Bryant Godman (Rye)
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Wolridge-Gordon, Patrick


James, David
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Jennings, J. C.
Prior, J. M. L.
Woodhouse, C. M.


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Proudfoot, Wilfred



Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Pym, Francis
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Joseph, Sir Keith
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan and




Mr. Kershaw.

Orders of the Day — COMMONWEALTH IMMIGRANTS [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make temporary provision for controlling the immigration into the United Kingdom of Commonwealth citizens and to authorise the deportation from the United Kingdom of certain Commonwealth citizens convicted of offences and recommended by the

Division No. 18.]
AYES
[14.19 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
James, David


Aitken, W. T.
Deedes, W. F.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Allason, James
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Jennings, J. C.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Doughty, Charles
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Atkins, Humphrey
Drayson, G. B.
Joseph, Sir Keith


Balniel, Lord
Duncan, Sir James
Kaberry, Sir Donald



Eden, John
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.


Barber, Anthony
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Barlow, Sir John
Elllott,R.W.(Newcstle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Kershaw, Anthony


Barter, John
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Kimball, Marcus


Batsford, Brian
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Kitson, Timothy



Farr, John
Lagden, Godfrey


Beamish, col. Sir Tufton
Finlay, Graeme
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Bell, Ronald
Fisher, Nigel
Leburn, Gilmour


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Got &amp; Fhm)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Legge-Baurke, Sir Harry


Berkeley, Humphry
Foster, John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
Lindsay, Martin


Biffen, John
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Linstead, Sir Hugh


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Freeth, Denzil
Litchfield, Capt. John


Bishop, F. P.
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)


Black, Sir Cyril
Gammans, Lady
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Bossom, Clive
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Longbottom, Charles


Bourne-Arton, A.
Gibson-Watt, David
Longden, Gilbert


Box, Donald
Gilmour, Sir John
Loveys, Walter H.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby


Boyle, Sir Edward
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Braine, Bernard
Goodhart, Philip
McAdden, Stephen


Brewis, John
Goodhew, Victor
McLaren, Martin


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col.Sir Walter
Gower, Raymond
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Brooman-White, R.
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.
Maclean,SirFitzroy(Bute&amp;N.Ayrs.)


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Green, Alan
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Gresham Cooke, R.



Bryan, Paul
Gurden, Harold
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)


Buck, Antony
Hall, John (Wycombe)
McMaster, Stanley R.


Bullard, Denys
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Harold(Bromley)


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)


Burden, F. A.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Maddan, Martin


Butcher, Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Maginnis, John E.


Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Hastings, Stephen
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hay, John
Marlowe, Anthony


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward
Marshall, Douglas


Cary, Sir Robert
Hendry, Forbes
Marten, Neil


Channon, H. P. G.
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Mathew, Robert (Honlton)


Chataway, Christopher
Hiley, Joseph
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Clark, Will am (Nottingham, S.)
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Mawby, Ray


Cleaver, Leonard
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Cole, Norman
Hirst, Geoffrey
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Cooke, Robert
Hocking, Philip N.
Mills, Stratton


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Holland, Philip
Montgomery, Fergus


Corfield, F. V.
Hollingworth, John
Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr)


Costain, A. P.
Hopkins, Alan
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Coulson, J. M.
Hornby, R. P.
Morrison, John


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Homsby-Smlth, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Critchley, Julian
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Nabarro, Gerald


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Cunningham, Knox
Hughes-Young, Michael
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey


Curran, Charles
Hurd, Sir Anthony
noble, Michael


Currie, G. B. H.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Nugent, Sir Richard


Dalkeith, Earl of
Iremonger, T. L.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Dance, James
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Osborn, John (Hallam)

court for deportation, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred for the purposes of that Act by the Secretary of State, the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Health.

Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution:—

The House divided: Ayes 276, Noes 199.

Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Roots, William
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Ropner, col. Sir Leonard
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Russell, Ronald
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, w.)


Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
St. Clair, M.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Partridge, E.
Scott-Hopkins, James
Turner, Colin


Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Seymour, Leslie
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Peel, John
Sharples, Richard
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Shaw, M.
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Pilkington, Sir Richard
Skeet, T. H. H.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Pitman, Sir James
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)
Walder, David


Pitt, Miss Edith
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Walker, Peter


Pott, Percivall
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher
Wall, Patrick


Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Ward, Dame Irene


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Speir, Rupert
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold



Stanley, Hon. Richard
Webster, David


Prior, J. M. L.
Stevens, Geoffrey
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Proudfoot, Wilfred
Stodart, J. A.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Pym, Francis
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Storey, Sir Samuel
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Ramsden, James
Studholme, Sir Henry
Wise, A. R.


Rawlinson, Peter
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Redmayne, Rt- Hon. Martin
Tapsell, Peter
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Rees, Hugh
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Woodhouse, C. M.


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Renton, David
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)



Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Teeling, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Ridsdale, Julian
Temple, John M.
Mr. Chichester-Clark and


Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Mr. Whitelaw.


Robson Brown, Sir William
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)





NOES


Abse, Leo
Forman, J, C.
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Ainsley, William
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)


Albu, Austen
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Lipton, Marcus


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Logan, David


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
George, Lady MeganLloyd(Crmrthn)
Loughlin, Charles


Awbery, Stan
Ginsburg, David
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Gooch, E. G.
McCann, John


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
MacColl, James


Bence, Cyril
Gourlay, Harry
McInnes, James


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Greenwood, Anthony
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Blackburn, F.
Grey, Charles
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)


Blyton, William
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
McLeavy, Frank



Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Boardman, H.
Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Grimond, J.
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Bowles, Frank
Gunter, Ray
Manuel, A. C.


Boyden, James
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mapp, Charles


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Marsh, Richard


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Mason, Roy


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hannan, William
Mayhew, Christopher


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Mendelson, J. J.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hayman, F. H.
Millan, Bruce


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Healey, Denis
Mitchison, G. R.


Callaghan, James
Henderson,Rt.Hn.Arthur(RwlyRegis)
Monslow, Walter


Castle, Mm. Barbara
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Moody, A. S.


Chapman, Donald
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Moyle, Arthur


Cliffe, Michael
Hilton, A. V.
Mulley, Frederick


Collick, Percy
Holman, Percy
Neal, Harold


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Holt, Arthur
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Houghton, Douglas
Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)


Davies,Rt.Hn.Clement(Montgomery)
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)



Davies, Harold (Leek)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Oliver, G. H.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Oram, A. E.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Owen, Will


Deer, George
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Delargy, Hugh
Hunter, A. E.
Pargiter, G. A.


Dempsey, James
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Parker, John


Diamond, John
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Paton, John


Driberg, Tom
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Pavitt, Laurence


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Jeger, George
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Ede, Rt. Hon. c.
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Peart, Frederick


Edelman, Maurice
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Pentland, Norman


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Popplewell, Ernest


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Prentice, R. E.


Evans, Albert
Kelley, Richard
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Fernyhough, E.
Kenyon, Clifford
Probert, Arthur


Finch, Harold
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Fletcher, Eric
King, Dr. Horace
Randall, Harry


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Ledger, Ron
Rankin, John


Foot, Michael (Ebbw vale)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Reid, William







Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John
White, Mrs. Eirene


Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)
Whitlock, William


Ross, William
Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Royle, Charles (Salford, West)
Swingler, Stephen
Willey, Frederick


Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Symonds, J. B.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Short, Edward
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Skeffington, Arthur
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Thorpe, Jeremy
Winterbottom, R. E.


Small, William
Timmons, John
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Sorensen, R. W.
Wade, Donald
Woof, Robert


Spriggs, Leslie
Warbey, William
Wyatt, Woodrow


Steele, Thomas
Watkins, Tudor
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Weitzman, David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Storehouse, John
Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Mr. Sydney Irving and


Stones. William
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Mr. Lawson.

Orders of the Day — COMMONWEALTH IMMIGRANTS BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

4.30 p.m.

The Chairman: I have issued a provisional list of the Amendments selected for discussion. I hope that this will be convenient to hon. Members.

Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: We appreciate your informing us of your decision, Sir Gordon, on what Amendments are to be selected.

Orders of the Day — Clause 1.—(APPLICATION OF PART I.)

Mr. Gaitskell: I beg to move, in page 1, line 12, at the end to insert:
or
(b) a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies; or".

The Chairman: I think that it would be convenient if we discussed also the following Amendments: in page I line 13, leave out from "passport" to "or" in line 14.
In Clause 2, page 2, line 40, after "citizen", insert:
other than a citizen of the United Kingdom and colonies".

Mr. Gaitskell: That would be convenient, Sir Gordon.
The attitude of our party to the Bill has been made abundantly clear. During the Second Reading debate we explained the reasons why we are opposed to the Bill as a whole, but today we are in Committee and concerned with its details.
The first Amendment does not deal with the principle of the Bill, though it does deal with a very important part of it. It has been described in one of

the newspapers as a wrecking Amendment. I wish to make it plain that in my opinion it is not a wrecking Amendment. It may well be that some Amendments could be so described; I do not know. There may be people who would argue to that extent, but I think that when the Committee has heard the explanation of the Amendment it will agree with me when I say that it is not a wrecking Amendment. If it is accepted, it will leave the Bill, in our view a deplorably bad one, but perhaps not quite so bad as it is now.
What does the Amendment do? It draws a distinction between independent territories in the Commonwealth, self-governing territories, and those which are dependent territories; between, to use the older phraseology, Dominions and Colonies. It emphasies, therefore, that although all the territories are within the Commonwealth, one can for certain purposes legitimately draw a distinction between them.
The obvious reason for this distinction is that the Colonies are our responsibility; that we do in the last resort still continue to govern them. They have governors appointed by Her Majesty, but the Secretary of State for the Colonies is responsible to this House for what the Governor does, in a way that neither he nor any other member of the Government is responsible, for instance, for what the Government of India or the Government of Canada may choose to do.
With that goes something else, that these Colonies of ours have no independent nationality of their own. They are not separate countries. They are part of the phrase "United Kingdom and Colonies". This was recognised very plainly by the British Nationality Act, 1948, which happens to be the latest


legislation on this subject. Before that Act was passed, no distinction for the purpose of nationality was drawn between the citizens of the United Kingdom and those of any other part of the Commonwealth, including the so-called Dominions.
After that Act such a distinction was drawn, and it was drawn very clearly between, to use the phrase which we have used in the Amendment, citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, on the one side, and citizens of self-governing members of the Commonwealth, on the other. I should add that even in the 1948 Act, only thirteen years ago, we still felt sufficiently strongly about the need to preserve the relationship between the Commonwealth and British citizenship to write into that Act that the citizenship of any of these other countries—I am speaking of Dominions not Colonies—carried with it the status of British subject and Commonwealth citizenship. But I am not concerned with that. I am concerned with the first distinction, the distinction which identifies clearly in that Act for the first time citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
In law at present, we here in Britain are in precisely the same position as regards nationality as the citizens of our Colonies. There is no difference. We all have the same passports. There is no question of a distinction between the place of issue, or the Government who issues it. The phrase is the same in them all, and any hon. Member who chooses to look at his pasport will find stamped in it, "British Subject, Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies". That is what we all are. I must confess that to introduce, as the Bill does, a new distinction according to how the passport—still the same blue passport—is issued, is an extraordinary innovation, for we are still, even after this Bill, citizens, in the Colonies or here, of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
What is being done by the Bill is to introduce a distinction between two kinds of Government. Clause 1 (2) says:
This section applies to any Commonwealth citizen not being—

(a) a person born in the United Kingdom;
(b) a person who holds a United Kingdom passport and is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, or who holds such a passport issued in the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland …"


Then, if one turns to subsection 3, one finds the definition of "United Kingdom passport", and these are the crucial words:
 ' United Kingdom passport' means a passport issued to the holder by the Government of the United Kingdom, not being a passport so issued on behalf of the Government of any part of the Commonwealth outside the United Kingdom.
I again remind the Committee that I am not speaking about Governments of independent countries within the Commonwealth. I think that the Committee will observe that we are introducing here a remarkable distinction between what the Government of the United Kingdom in Britain does, and what the Government of a Colony does, which seems to me wholly untenable.
What we are, in effect, saying is that the Government of Gibraltar—and after all, Gibraltar is obviously one of the territories affected—can issue a passport to a member of the Gibraltar community, to a citizen of Gibraltar,—he is still a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies—but it does not carry with it the rights of a United Kingdom and Colonies citizen who happens to have a passport issued by the United Kingdom Government. This is done despite the fact that we still have responsibility for the government of those territories. I find this constitutionally an extraordinary position.
I submit that these people of whom we are speaking this afternoon are British. They cannot be described in any other way. They are British people. There is no proposal before us to amend the British Nationality Act, 1948. They are still citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and they have no other home. They have no other nation. We have not granted them independence. They are part of us. I venture to say that this argument alone is an extremely weighty one which hon. Gentlemen opposite will find some difficulty in disposing of. I appeal to them to consider carefully what they are doing in this.
There are a number of other reasons for the Amendment. During the course of his Second Reading speech, the Home Secretary urged, as his first reason for the Bill, that it was highly embarrassing for us that within the Commonwealth


there were no fewer than one quarter of the world's population. He was frightened that they might all come here. It was a very specious argument, as the right hon. Gentleman knew very well. At least, this Amendment might appeal to him, for if it is accepted, he need have no anxiety. It will not involve the 400 millions of India coming here. It will not involve the Pakistanis coming here. It will not involve anyone but the citizens of the remaining Colonies, so long as they are Colonies.
We know, roughly, what they are. I suppose that the largest territories are still in Africa—Gambia, Northern Rhodesia, and, for the time being Nyasaland, I suppose, Kenya, for the time being, though for how long we do not know, some islands, Gibraltar, also of historic importance which I should not have thought people could ignore altogether, Malta, and, of course, Uganda—

Mr. Gordon Walker: For the time being.

Mr. Gaitskell: My right hon. Friend says "for the time being".
Of course, there is also the West Indies. It may well be that the Government and hon. Gentlemen opposite say, "Well, that would be all right if it were not for the West Indies. We would not worry, because, after all, there is not an enormous number of people coming here from East Africa, there is not an enormous number coming from Mauritius or Zanzibar, or any of the other islands which are still colonies, but there are many people coming here from the West Indies". Therefore, I make no apology for concentrating now upon their case.
I think that we should recall just a little of the history of the West Indies. The overwhelming majority of the inhabitants of these islands were not there when we acquired possession of them. Barbados was uninhabited, and in most of the other islands there might have been some natives there, but they were comparatively small in number. We find that, overwhelmingly, the population there has come from other continents—from Africa, and to some extent from India. How did they get there?
They did not go as free immigrants. They went there because our ancestors, British traders and planters of that time, needed their slave labour to work on the plantations. In that sense, we created these islands ourselves. Britain did it, and we cannot escape responsibility for what was done. After all, this is not a very recent thing. Some of these islands—I think I am right in saying Barbados and Jamaica—have been British for about three hundred years. They have never been anything else. We made them. We brought them up in our own traditions. They have no other language, and nothing is spoken there except English.
Those hon. Members who have been there will agree with me—it is a rather entertaining thing to do—that we find various accents which we can trace to different parts of the British Isles. We find an Irish accent quite common, and also a Welsh accent in some cases, and we find that these accents are there because our forefathers taught them those accents. Their culture has been affected by us, and I need hardly emphasise their sporting abilities. Few small islands could have been so brilliant at cricket as those in the Federation of the West Indies. That is one reason why I think that, far from taking the view that because the West Indies are still a Colony, we cannot accept this Amendment, we should say, "Right, this is a good case. We have special obligations here, and we should not apply these distinctions"
I do not know how many hon. Members heard or saw Sir Grantley Adams in his television appearance and interviews last night. I did not see him myself, but my wife did, and she told me how deeply moved she was—and I have heard it from other people—because of what he said about the feeling of the people that they were British and had never felt anything else. If people are like that, and they are British, how can we keep them out of Britain? How can we do this thing?
4.45 p.m.
There is another reason. It may well be that the main motive for people coming here has been economic. I have never denied that, but if we were to stop Indians and Pakistanis coming here, though I would deplore it, for the reasons I gave on Second Reading, I certainly


would not claim that the trickle of immigrants from these territories made any substantial economic difference to the situation in the countries from which they come. In the West Indies, it is a very different matter. If we stop them coming in, and hon. Gentlemen opposite know this very well, we shall be throwing back their unemployment problem upon them. We cannot say that this is not a matter for us. They are still our responsibility. How can we do this? I beg hon. Members opposite, and I beg the Government, to think very seriously about what the consequences may be.
If we stop them coming here, and we stop this outlet, and, at the same time, we give them the impression, as we must,—let there be no illusions about this—that this is a colour bar, let us consider what the political consequences are likely to be in these islands. There are groups and parties in Jamaica and the other islands which are frankly racialist in their outlook. What a fillip it will give them. I am not surprised that those who are at present governing—the Prime Minister and Ministers in these islands under our Colonial Office—should feel bitterly about this, and sad, too, because there is something else about the West Indies with which I think those hon. Members who have been there will agree with me.
One of the things that impressed me so deeply was the absolute absence of any racial friction there, and the real feeling that one had of racial equality. It may be partly because we do not just have two colours, but because we have a great many different colours. Whatever it may be, it is something which, I should have thought, was, in this moment of history, rather precious. It is particularly tragic that we should destroy it, as I am afraid we shall.
There is yet another reason. Nobody would think that, even with immigration to this country, the economic situation in Jamaica and Barbados and the other islands is particularly good, even with the efforts we have made, as we learnt at Question Time the other day, in trying to induce the United States to grant a quota-free entry to these islands. I will not trouble the Committee with the details, although I was aware of them before, but there are possibilities here, and the matter is under examination by a Congressional Committee.
We want our Government to encourage the United States to do this, because it would be helpful to these islands. How can the Government go to the Americans and say, "Will you please lift your quota?" at the very moment when we are imposing ours? How can that be done? Is it not obvious that this is bound to prejudice any efforts which we may make in that direction? One would have thought that at least the Government would try to start with their hands free, without the burden of this Bill, to go to the President and American Government and urge them to take this step.
What is the Government's case for this? It is definitely not that we may be flooded out. We cannot be flooded out by the few millions remaining in the Colonies. Let us be clear about this; there is no possibility that all of them will come over here, any more than there is the possibility that the Indians and the rest will come over here. The case so far made out has been principally based on the argument—and here, I gather from the newspapers, the point was made again by the Prime Minister—that although it is all right now there may later be unemployment, and then it will be very difficult.
At the Tory Party Conference the Home Secretary said the same thing. He said:
There is no immediate anxiety about the employment of immigrants but we must look ahead… Will this country be able to absorb indefinitely immigrants at the current rate of entry together with the natural growth of our population?
My first question is: if there is no immediate anxiety about the employment of immigrants why are the Government rushing the Bill through now? We are entitled to an answer to that question. How do these arguments add up? If there is no immediate anxiety, and it is merely a vague fear, what will happen in the future? Surely the least that should have been done was to ensure that proper consultations were held before the Bill was proceeded with—and I shall return to that matter shortly.
Secondly, when did the Government start getting frightened about unemployment? Is this something that we must take seriously, or is it a patent excuse, due to the fact that they cannot think of anything else to say? We are


entitled to a further explanation here. The Prime Minister referred to this point in his talk with Sir Grantley Adams. I should like to repeat and also to enlarge upon what I said in the Second Reading debate. If hon. Members are seriously frightened about unemployment and its possible consequences here, and about the possibility of there being a lot of coloured immigrants out of work, I ask them to consider the facts—that is to say, the relationship between the immigration from the West Indies and the number of outstanding vacancies here. I said then that as the number of vacancies arose the movement of migration also went up, and as the number of vacancies went down that movement declined.
I hope that the Committee will bear with me if I give some figures here, because they are extraordinary. I begin with 1956. In the first quarter of that year there were 257,000 outstanding vacancies, and the number of West Indian migrant arrivals was 4,700. In the second quarter there was an increase in the number of outstanding vacancies, to 270.000, and a substantial increase in the number of migrant arrivals, to 9,000. There was a fall in the number of vacancies in the third quarter and also a fall in the number of arrivals from the Commonwealth. There was yet another fall in the number of vacancies in the fourth quarter—a sharp fall this time, as the economic situation evidently deteriorated—and also a fall in the number of arrivals, from 8,000 to 3,500.
There is the same picture in 1957. In the first quarter the number of vacancies went down, and so did the number of migrant arrivals. There was a rise in the number of vacancies in the second quarter, and also in the number of migrant arrivals. I have the figures for the past five years, and in practically every case it is a matter of equivalent movement, quarter by quarter. What does this suggest? It suggests that these people come here when they are wanted and do not come here when they are not wanted. That is common sense.
When the Home Secretary talks about the fear of unemployment I suggest, first, that he had better explain how frightened he is. What does he expect? Is this a serious argument? Secondly, I

suggest that even if he is frightened that there will be a depression here he need not worry about the immigration figure. I think that he can take it as certain that if there were to be any serious increase in unemployment here, with a consequent diminution in the number of outstanding vacancies, not only would the number of arriving migrants decline sharply but that there would be a large return to the West Indies. Last week, we saw the beginning of this trend. I cannot understand how any serious-minded person can put forward this argument in the face of those figures.
It is also sometimes suggested that during the last five years there has been a steady increase in the numbers coming from the West Indies—that the numbers are gradually increasing year by year, and that we shall eventually be flooded out with them. That is simply not true. The figures vary from year to year, and I will quote them. I am dealing now entirely with the West Indies. In 1955, the number was 27,500; in 1956, it was 29,800; in 1957—the crisis year—it was 23,000, a decline. In 1958, as the contraction went on here, the migration figure fell to 15,000. It rose slightly in 1959, to 16,400 and in 1960 to 50,000. The same sort of figure is probable for 1961. This does not show a steadily increasing rush of migrants. It shows a variation according to the economic situation existing here.
What other arguments can the Government adduce? One has been mentioned in various newspapers, and I want to ask the Government a direct question in relation to it. Were they asked at any time, in the discussions about the Common Market, before we went further with this matter, to make sure that we could control the flow of migrants from the Commonwealth, so that, in turn, Europe would not have to face a possible flow from this country? I have not mentioned that possibility before, but I have read it in several newspapers, and since it has been said we should be clear whether or not there is anything in it.
As far as I can see, unless the Amendment is accepted citizens of the Colonies—those who have passports issued in the wrong place—will be kept out. What will be the position of the Irish? Can


we know? First, they were in the Bill—that is to say, they were to be subject to control. Then, in the Second Reading debate, the Home Secretary said that we could not keep them out. The whole implication of his speech was that they were to be taken out of the Bill. Then, so quickly do Government minds change, the Minister of Labour, when winding up said that the Government would have another look to see whether they could pop them in again in the Bill.
This is an absurd situation. So far as I can see there are no Government Amendments dealing with this matter. What will they do about it? I hope that they will at least be honest with the Committee and will not try to pretend that they are going to keep the Irish out and then quietly allow them in. I do not wish to keep the Irish out, any more than I wish to keep out people from the rest of the Commonwealth; they are just as useful to us over here, and have been for years, as those coming from the West Indies. But it will be an intolerable position if the Irish are allowed in and the people from the Colonies, for whom we are responsible, are kept out—and I mean kept out, effectively.
Will he Home Secretary tell us whether the Government are proposing to introduce Amendments dealing with the problem? If they are not going to do so, how, precisely, will the Bill be administered so as to keep the same degree of control over immigration from Ireland? Or will the Home Secretary tell us that the Government will leave it in the Bill, but, of course, will not attempt to administer control? I suppose that it would be better to be told that the Government were going to administer it, although, in practice, they would not be able to do so.
There is one other question which has special reference to the West Indies, and that is the question of consultation. The Government record in this matter is extraordinary. Earlier we asked about consultation and we received general replies from different Ministers saying that it had taken place. Then Sir Grantley Adams sent me a telegram—which I passed to the Prime Minister—in which he described exactly what had happened. The Committee should be

reminded of this. Sir Grantley Adams said:
I categorically deny that West Indies Government was ever consulted in any way whatever about form or detailed provisions of Bill. On October 13th we were told in confidence the intention to introduce restrictive legislation given its broad general terms and promised the Secretary of State's readiness 'to discuss any matter which may arise from time to time from operation of Bill' We strongly protested.
On October 31st he repeated those assertions, again using the word 'operation'. On November 7th we first knew of provisions through receiving savingram dated November 1st with printed copies of the Bill without invitation to comment. On November 16th we received another confidential telegram explaining the mechanics of voucher system and asking for our co-operation in working out details.
This is what the Government call consultation. I ask the Government again: how is it that before they decided to introduce the Bill they did not have proper consultations with the Prime Ministers and leaders of the Colonies most likely to be affected by it? How can this be defended?
5.0 p.m.
I know what will be said, or perhaps it will be said—"Oh yes, of course we did have discussions." On 23rd November the Prime Minister told me:
The right hon. Gentleman knows quite well that informal and confidential discussions on this matter have gone on for a long time.
A little later, he said:
This matter had been discussed and had been in the air for a very long time. Confidential and informal discusions were held… "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd November, 1961; Vol. 649, c. 1541–2.]
When I asked the Leader of the House about this very recently; when I said:
Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman consulted Commonwealth Governments about a proposal for the British Government to control immigration from the Commonwealth?
he said:
No, Sir. That side of it was dealt with by the Prime Minister."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th November, 1961; Vol. 650, c. 632.]
"Dealt with" is a strange phrase to use in that connection. The fact is that there have been no informal discussions whatever with Sir Grantley Adams and with Mr. Manley. I can tell the Committee that. Sir Grantley Adams told me so himself, and I think that there are enough hon. Members who know him well enough to realise that he would not have invented that. There


was none at all. I say that this is really a scandalous thing for the Government to have done and it is not improved by the way in which Ministers have tried to pretend that there were consultations when there were not.
I do not regard the parliamentary correspondent of Punch as being particularly biassed on our side, but I think that what he said over this matter is worth recalling. In his report in the issue of 29th November he said:
The trouble about being a clever politician is that after a time nobody believes what you say—least of all when it happens to be true.
Then, after various points which were illustrating that, he said:
So, in the same way on Thursday, nobody quite believed, however bold the assertions, that Mr. Macmillan had consulted Sir Grantley Adams over the Immigration Bill as fully as he pretended. People believe that he didn't simply because he said that he did. Indeed, when Mr. Macmillan said, 'The Prime Ministers' Conference did not in its open session discuss this question"—

Mr. Compton Carr: On a point of order. With the greatest respect, may I ask whether the matter now being raised by the Leader of the Opposition is in order in discussing this Amendment?

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. John Arbuthnot): Had he not been in order I should have called the right hon. Gentleman to order.

Mr. Gaitskell: I am obliged, Mr. Arbuthnot.
I would say to the hon. Gentleman that I think the question of whether we are to exclude from this Bill citizens of the Colonies is closely related to whether those persons or their representatives had been properly consulted. I am saying that they have not been properly consulted and evidently that is the view of the parliamentary correspondent of Punch; and he thought, evidently, that it was also the view of most hon. Members in this House.
I will complete the quotation. He said:
People believe that he didn't simply because he said that he did. Indeed, when Mr. Macmillan said, 'The Prime Ministers' Conference did not in its open session discuss this question as Prime Ministers', what were Members expected to believe? This may be

all most unfair, but I am afraid that that is the way it is.
Yes, that is the way it is—and a shocking state of affairs, too.
I do not know, but possibly hon. Members opposite, and the Government, are so desperately frightened at the danger of racial friction here that they feel that they must rush this thing through. If that is the case I wish that they had told us. I do not think they are right to be so frightened. I do not know whether many hon. Members read the interesting article on the position in Nottingham, published in the Economist. I will not read it all, but after pointing out that the immigrants were not packing into and smashing up the houses they inhabit it states:
… the city's medical officer of health reports that neither disrepair nor overcrowding is more serious in immigrants' houses than it is in the rest of Nottingham.
After saying
few immigrants are on National Assistance. Few young coloured people are unemployed; but their elders are less easy to place
it states—I think that I must read this—about the health of the immigrants:
… in Nottingham, far from being simultaneous carriers and spreaders of everything from smallpox to leprosy, the coloured population suffers mainly from digestive troubles (being unused to British food), coughs and colds; their children suffer unbilical hernia more often than English children do; and their babies get bronchitis. Tuberculosis, it is stressed, is rare. The crime bill is remarkably clean. Nottingham's chief constable finds that only coloured people sometimes have noisy parties, which break up when the police ask them to. But, he says, 'so far there is no evidence that they engage in crime'. How many other of 8,000 people could match that?
This is a Bill which had much better be dropped altogether. The Bill with our Amendment would at least be one degree more tolerable. The Amendment has, I believe, logic, compassion and common sense, and I hope that the Committee will approve it.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): I think that it may be convenient if on this occasion I make an immediate answer, even though it be a short one, to the speech which we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. I should like to make perfectly clear, first, to the right hon. Gentleman, and to his hon. Friends, that there is no question of dropping this Bill and that we


propose to see it through. We have brought it in for very good reasons, which I gave in my speech during the Second Reading debate, because the situation is one which should be taken hold of before there is any deterioration in certain of the areas to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.
I accept immediately the tone in which the right hon. Gentleman addressed the Committee, and I accept personally the reports of the chief constables and the social reports we get on the question of indulgence in crime by many of our immigrants from overseas, which cannot be said to be in any way worse and are often in many ways better than that of the local population. I accept all those things. But I still say that this Bill is vital at the present time, and I propose now to try to answer the right hon. Gentleman.
It is an extremely peculiar Amendment that the right hon. Gentleman has chosen with which to make his first onslaught on the Bill. The position, frankly, is that U.K. and colonial citizenship is to be exempted and others are to be included. I think that we must get clear what this means. It means that the right hon. Gentleman, having come to the Committee stage of the Bill, immediately concedes that a wide measure of control of immigrants from the Commonwealth is necessary—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—

Mr. Gordon Walker: rose—

Hon. Members: Give way.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. If the Minister does not give way the right hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.

Mr. Gaitskell: rose—

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Gaitskell: I am obliged. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to try to keep the debate at a slightly higher level. I said nothing of the kind. I made it perfectly clear that we were opposed to the Bill as a whole and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, which Amendment happens to come first depends on the Bill and the accident of the selection of Amendments. The position still remains that we detest the Bill as a whole. But if we have to have the Bill as a whole, as evidently we are, we

would rather have it with our Amendment.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Butler: I have to take the Amendment as I find it on the Notice Paper. The effect of the Amendment on the Notice Paper would be to leave a wide measure of control over Commonwealth self-dependent countries and remove simply those with U.K. and colonial citizenship. I think we had better get it quite clear that the effect of this Amendment, which I consider would be wrong, in the initial stages of this discussion would be that a diminishing part of the Commonwealth would be exempted from control.
When we come to the case of the West Indies, on which the right hon. Gentleman spoke with considerable power and emotion, Sir Grantley Adams and everyone else there must realise that the effect of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment would be that on gaining independence, which is in sight, they would come under control. Therefore, we must balance against the high-minded phrasing and sentiments of the right hon. Gentleman that if you are dependent you have free entry and if you are independent you have control. I should regard this Amendment, therefore, as being for these reasons extremely unsatisfactory and not at all suitable to the Bill.
Also, in my view, taking the Amendment as we find it on the Notice Paper, which we must do in discussing this Bill, it would be invidious to draw distinctions between Commonwealth countries, in favour of a country like Australia or Hong Kong and other dependent territories. I do not believe this will be well received overseas, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman's argument will be received as anything but a great mistake in the course of the passage of the Committee stage of the Bill.

Mr. Gordon Walker: The right hon. Gentleman says that he has to take this Amendment as it is on the Notice Paper. I take it that he has taken the trouble to read the whole of the Amendments on the Paper. It is quite clear that we have to take one thing at a time. We want in later Amendments to exempt citizens of Commonwealth nations. It is a cheap


and pettifogging point which the Secretary is trying to make.

Mr. Butler: In that case, the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) gives the lie to what was said by his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. He said that his Amendment was in no sense a wrecking Amendment. Taking the Amendments to which the right hon. Member for Smethwick has now referred in company with this Amendment, they are obviously wrecking Amendments to the Bill. If there is to be any charge of insincerity, it should be laid at the door of right hon. Members opposite who attempt to prove that they are not indulging in wrecking Amendments. I hope I have said enough to show that this Amendment by itself—

Mr. John Diamond: On a point of order, Mr. Arbuthnot. We have been notified of the Amendments which have been selected, and those Amendments include a number of Amendments which the Home Secretary now describes as wrecking Amendments. Is it in order to describe as wrecking Amendments Amendments which have been selected by the Chair?

The Temporary Chairman: The Amendments we are now dealing with are: the Amendment which has been moved, the Amendment to page 1, line 13, and the Amendment to Clause 2, page 2, line 40.

Mr. Diamond: Further to that point of order. I apologise for not having made my meaning clear. May I refer to Amendments appearing later on the Notice Paper which the Home Secretary has just mentioned in your hearing? May I refer to those Amendments which have been selected and which have been notified in the Division Lobby as having been selected? Those Amendments dealing with Commonwealth countries the Home Secretary has now termed wrecking Amendments. Is it in order to describe as wrecking Amendments Amendments which have been selected by the Chair?

The Temporary Chairman: Those Amendments have been only provisionally selected and we are not discussing them now.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Further to that point of order. With great respect, it would appear that the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) has been misconceived. I understand that he is not suggesting that we should discuss now any other Amendment than the one which has been moved. What he is suggesting to you, Mr. Arbuthnot, is that it is a reflection on the Chair to describe as a wrecking Amendment an Amendment which the Chair has selected.

The Temporary Chairman: If the hon. Member looks at the Paper giving the selection by the Chair, he will see that it is a provisional selection. We are at present dealing with the first Amendment, the Amendment to page 1, line 13, and the Amendment to Clause 2, page 2, line 40.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: Could we have your ruling, Mr. Arbuthnot, on whether it is in order to describe as a wrecking Amendment an Amendment which the Chair has provisionally selected?

The Temporary Chairman: It is not incumbent upon me to answer metaphysical questions.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: Further to that point of order. We are discussing the first Amendment on the Notice Paper, an Amendment which was selected by the Chair as proper for discussion. It is that Amendment, among others, to which the Home Secretary has referred as a wrecking Amendment. Is it in order for the Home Secretary to refer to something as a wrecking Amendment which has been actually discussed with and has passed the Chair?

The Temporary Chairman: I do not consider that the reference made by the Home Secretary was that this Amendment of itself was a wrecking Amendment.

Mr. Butler: May I congratulate you, Sir, on your discernment and the correct appreciation you have made of my remarks? My reference to wrecking is simply that if we are to get the Bill cut into ribbons here and cut into ribbons there nothing will remain of the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]


Hon. Members acknowledge that. If they accept that definition, I tell them in perfect good humour that the Government are not going to stand for it. We are proposing to get this Bill through substantially in its present form. I would also add—

Mr. J. Grimond: Is the Home Secretary implying that it is a waste of time to move Amendments and that the Government are not going to listen to the arguments?

Mr. Butler: I was coming to my next remark, which is that we are going to see the Bill through substantially in its present form, but there are a great many Amendments which we can consider favourably—as a result of looking at the Notice Paper, those which have been selected by the Chair. I shall refer to a particular question, namely the duration of the Bill, in the course of my remarks this afternoon in answer to the Leader of the Opposition. There are a great many other points on Clause 1, including the questions of residence and students. All those are things on which possibly we can get a substantial amount of agreement. I believe we can meet a great many of the constructive points in the Amendments put down, but I do not believe that we can meet an Amendment such as this which would sunder United Kingdom citizenship from Commonwealth citizenship. I do not believe that we can divide the immigration problem in that way. I do not believe we can accept the sort of Amendments to which the right hon. Member for Smethwick referred. I hope that will inform the Committee that we approach this Committee stage in a constructive manner. We shall try to do our best to make the Bill a better Bill when it passes into an Act. I think this will be found not to be a humbug when we have completed the Committee stage.
Before I refer to some of the questions put to me by the Leader of the Opposition, I think it my duty to refer in answer to the method of operation of Clause 1. The purpose is to define those who belong to the United Kingdom, and therefore have right of entry, and those who have no United Kingdom citizenship—the right hon. Gentleman referred to the Act of 1948—and on whom we do not confer exemp-

tion. Under the Act of 1948, there are separate citizenships. The self-governing territories of the Commonwealth created their own citizenship, and there is citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies to which he referred. Then there are other British citizens who have, so to speak, been left behind by the tide, some of whom live in Eire and some of whom live in fairly large numbers in India and Pakistan.
The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) will be the first to agree with me that there is no more complicated subject than citizenship or nationality and the Acts concerned with it. Therefore, in order to define "belonging to the United Kingdom" two criteria have been laid down in the Bill—first, that the person should be born here, and, secondly, that he should have a United Kingdom passport. In the latter case, if the holder is not a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, his passport must have been issued in the United Kingdom or in the Republic of Ireland, The latter proviso is to include certain Irish loyalists who under the 1948 Act elected to remain British but stayed in the Republic. Those are the only types to be covered by this proviso. Dependants will be shown on the passport.
The criteria in Clause 1 have been chosen partly for simplicity for the immigration officer to interpret. He can tell at a glance from the passports who is covered and who reasonably belongs to the United Kingdom. If hon. Members require a simple definition of the British Nationality Act, 1948, they will see in the explanation of Clause 1, which is contained in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, a clear definition of who is exempted and who is not.
The reason why we believe that we must adhere to our point and cannot take up the point of the right hon. Gentleman is that we believe that the pressure of immigration comes not only from the Commonwealth but also from the Colonies. The Bill is made necessary by the figures I announced, which were net figures, some of which the right hon. Gentleman quoted. So there is no need for me to quote them. They are the net figures of hard immigration which make the Bill necessary.
The right hon. Gentleman quoted some figures for the West Indies. The total net figure of inward movement for the first ten months of 1961 from the West Indies, East and West Africa, Cyprus, Gibraltar, Malta, Aden, Hong Kong, Malaya, Singapore, India, Pakistan and Ceylon is no less than 113,500, as compared with 57,710 in 1960, 21,620 in 1959, and 29,830 in 1958. This is regarded by the Government as an indication of a very considerable rise in immigration. That is why we are introducing the Bill, because we feel that the situation should be capable of being controlled, although we do not believe that when the Bill is finally passed it will be unreasonable or that it will make it impossible for bona fide immigrants to come to this country, especially those seeking work, those who are coming here on visits, those who are coming as students, and so forth. When the Committee has had an opportunity of going into these matters in detail, I believe that it will realise that this control is not going to be so impossible or severe as Sir Grantley Adams and many other sincere and decent people overseas fear it will be.

Mr. John Dugdale: Will the right hon. Gentleman divide the figures into those coming from the Colonies and those coming from independent countries, so that we may have them in perspective in discussing the Amendment?

Mr. Butler: I will certainly make some figures available. I think that they have been circulated in the past in the OFFICIAL REPORT. If they have not been, I will see that they are circulated. I can only tell the right hon. Gentleman that the figure for the West Indies for the first ten months of 1961 was 57,700. The figure for India was 18,300. The figure for Pakistan was 19,280. The net inward movement from India during 1958 was 6,200. The net inward figure for the West Indies was, as quoted by the Leader of the Opposition, 15,020. That gives some indication of the numbers. The numbers from the other countries I mentioned are not so large.
It is for these reasons that we have decided that we must proceed with the Bill. Let us hope that we can make it

a better and a suitable Measure as we pass it through Committee and Report.
I was asked by the right hon. Gentleman to give an answer on the question of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman was permitted by the Chair to discuss Ireland and so, if I may, I will answer him. I hope that I shall be regarded as being in order. I will not go into the full case about Ireland because there is a later Amendment on the Notice Paper—that in page 2, line 6, which seeks to delete subsection (4)—which I think would be more appropriate for a detailed consideration of this subject. Therefore, if I truncate my remarks it will not be from a desire to avoid the subject but merely because we shall be considering it again.
As I explained in my Second Reading speech, there is a close association with Ireland, geographically and for every other reason. There is a close association in citizenship, the Southern Irish being regarded as British citizens. There is a close association in voting, the Irish being allowed to vote. There are always very many anomalies when we deal with the Irish question.
On Second Reading I explained why it is virtually impossible to control the Irish coming in by the ports, unless we impose a control within the United Kingdom itself—that is, against United Kingdom citizens in Northern Ireland. The Government have considered this very carefully. They have considered the possibility of manning and policing the border between Eire and Ulster, but have decided that the difficulties are too great to make this possible. That is the decision which the Government have reached. I am giving the right hon. Gentleman the decisions, because he asked to have them.
The next question which arises is: why was Ireland mentioned in the Bill. It was natural, we thought, to mention the Republic of Ireland in the Bill, for a variety of reasons. The main one was that we genuinely wanted to have the power to control Irish immigration in the case of absolute necessity. [Laughter.] There is no need for hon. Gentlemen to laugh, because I am trying to explain the details of this difficult problem. The main reason why we want to have this power in reserve is that, if the Government of the Republic


do not control immigration from the Common wealth coming to their shores, it would be necessary to adopt the inevitable course, undesirable though the Government regard it, of imposing an immigration control at the docks to catch immigrants coming in.
But I have reason to believe that the Southern Irish Government have recently indicated in the Dáil—Mr. Aiken, the Foreign Secretary, was the speaker—the likelihood that the Government of the Republic would take steps at their ports to control immigrants. If that is so, there will be no reason from that point of view to impose control at the ports.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the speech of the Minister of Labour in winding up the debate on Second Reading. My right hon. Friend said then that we would consider every possibility of controlling the Irish, even if control at the ports were not possible. He said that a variety of points had been put to me and we would consider them.

Mr. S. Silverman: Does the Committee understand the right hon. Gentleman correctly? Does he say that he has some sort of assurance from the Foreign Secretary of the Republic of Ireland that, in order to maintain the right of his citizens to come here, he will put an embargo on the ports to keep other people out?

Mr. Butler: There is no such arrangement. Nothing has passed between the Governments in this sense. What I have read in the newspaper is the statement made by the Foreign Secretary of the Irish Republic that they were intending to impose control at their ports. No sort of persuasion or anything else has come into the matter. It has been decided by the Government of the Republic.

Mr. Silverman: Will the Home Secretary explain this a little further? Does he say that he made the statement that he made just now without any authority at all, except what he read in the newspaper, and without any consultation whatever with the Foreign Secretary of the Republic of Ireland?

Mr. Butler: There are the normal consultations between Governments, but I made this statement without having

attempted to persuade or in any way affect the Government of Southern Ireland, and the statement was made and then communicated to me in the ordinary manner. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question.
5.30 p.m.
I was saying that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, in his winding-up speech on Second Reading, said that every possibility would be examined. The Government's position in relation to Irish immigration remains that we desire to keep this power in reserve. We regard it as a power that is extremely difficult to use, but we wish to keep it in reserve. We propose between now and the time when this Measure needs to be renewed to take every possible precaution to obtain information about the scope and nature of the problem of Irish immigration.
We intend to do that by investigating the insurance cards laid with the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance; to approach it through the records of the Ministry of Labour and, if necessary, to approach it by using the power contained in the First Schedule to impose the need for landing cards. We propose to accompany that plan with the suggestion contained in an Amendment which I propose shortly to put down to Clause 5—which will meet much of the sense of the various Amendments to Clause 5—that we should treat this subject as we treat alien control, and provide that this Bill shall expire in December, 1963, and that it then shall be renewed by the Expiring Laws Continuance Act.
We believe that that will give an opportunity for the whole question to be reviewed, not only in the light of developments that may or may not occur in the Irish problem, but also in the light of developments that may or may not occur in the Common Market problem—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]

Mr. Paget: As I understand what the Home Secretary has said about the Irish problem, it is that the control is not to be applied to the Irish unless there is an absolute necessity; that that absolute necessity will not arise as long as the Irish immigrants continue to be white, but if, owing to Commonwealth people


coming through the Irish ports, the Irish immigrants begin to be black, an absolute necessity will arise.

Mr. Butler: No, that is not the interpretation. It is very rarely that I can accept an interpretation from the hon. and learned Gentleman, and that one is totally wrong—

Mr. Paget: That is what the right hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Butler: No, it is not what I said. If it became obvious that Commonwealth immigrants were able to come through the Irish ports without possibility of control, it might be necessary to reconsider — [HON. MEMBERS: "Who?"]—Commonwealth immigrants as a whole. Immigrants—Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, or anyone from the Commonwealth would be susceptible to the same control; if that occurred, we should have to review the position.
I have made a secondary reservation that we shall watch the position between now and the time when the Bill comes up for renewal in case for any other reason it seems necessary to apply control to the Irish immigrants—

Mr. Hector Hughes: What the right hon. Gentleman has said about his relations with the Irish Republican Government is rather vague. Will he tell the Committee whether or not he has had direct communication with the Foreign Secretary of the Irish Republican Government?

Mr. Butler: Relations with Ireland are usually vague, and it is, perhaps, better that they should be left vague. There have been the usual methods of communication with the Irish Government, as well as with any other Government concerned.
May I now answer—

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Butler: No, I must proceed—

Several Hon. Members: rose—

The Deputy-Chairman (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. Unless the right hon. Gentleman gives way no other hon. Member may be on his feet.

Mr. Hector Hughes: With due respect, Sir William, I asked the right hon. Gentleman a question and he has evaded answering it.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well that he is not in order to remain on his feet if the right hon. Gentleman does not give way.

Mr. Hughes: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Butler: No, I must answer the other points raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. We are in Committee, and I do not wish to speak for too long.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether there had been any agreement or arrangement in relation to the Common Market; whether we had been asked to control Commonwealth immigration. I would hold to the Answer given by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal on 29th November, 1961, in which he said:
We have had no discussions whatever with the European Economic Community Governments about the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th November, 1961; Vol. 650, c. 49.]

Mr. Frank Bowles: I am obliged to the Home Secretary for giving way. I, too, have been reading the newspapers, and one of them said:
The Common Market is the real reason for the Government's proposed curb on immigration, said Jamaica's Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Keble Munn, yesterday.
Britain does not want to sit down at the bargaining table, he said, liable to attack as a pipeline through which coloured Commonwealth citizens can be fed into Europe.
That appeared in the Daily Express on 25th November. Is it right?

Mr. Butler: I am afraid that I cannot always accept what is in the Daily Express as correct. I must leave my interpretation, as given by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal, as being the correct one in answer to the right hon. Gentleman who asked the specific question.
Before I leave Ireland, I would add that the Government, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and I myself have considered every possibility of controlling the Irish, once they get here, by a system of work control. We


have studied the Northern Ireland Safeguarding of Employment Act, but have found that for various reasons, particularly to do with the difficulty of providing public assistance, with the difficulty of identification, and with the difficulty of imposing this as an offence and finding the person who has offended—for all these reasons—and the possibility that deportation would be the only sanction against some wretched Irishman who was refused a job—we have found that these methods are not sound, so we have not been able to put them before the House.
I do not believe that during the course of this Committee stage we shall find, in the immense population of our industrial country, a method of internal control of labour that is possible to enforce. I mention that only because some of my hon. and right hon. Friends have asked us to look into these matters; we find them extremely difficult to carry through—

Mr. Charles Royle: What happens to the Jamaican who arrives in Cork and comes to this country from Dublin? Will he be in the same position as the Irish in the way the Home Secretary has now described it?

Mr. Butler: If a control is imposed at the Irish ports—that is, control by the Government of Southern Ireland of entry into Ireland—such a matter would not arise, and I cannot deal with every hypothetical question. Our general intention is to impose a control on Commonwealth immigrants, and I can only trust to the ingenuity of the immigration officers to deal with any situation that may arise—[Interruption.] The answer—

Mr. Denis Howell: On a point of order, Sir William. Is it not the fact that the Home Secretary is now, in respect of this particular matter, attempting to answer for the policy of the Southern Ireland Government, and is not that completely out of order?

The Deputy-Chairman: The Home Secretary has said nothing that is not perfectly in order in debate.

Mr. Butler: Thank you, Sir William, for your kindly interpretation of my remarks.
I think that I have answered most of the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman. We shall have a further opportunity—

Mr. Thorpe: rose—

Mr. Butler: No—we shall have a further opportunity of going into the Irish aspect in the later stages—

Mr. Thorpe: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I should like to ask him what is, I hope, just a simple question about Ireland. He has said that he will try to take precautions to obtain information—whatever that may mean. Does it, in fact, come to this: that Jamaican citizens will be subjected to the provisions of the Bill when coming into the country but that foreign citizens from the Republic of Ireland may come in completely freely? Is that the position?

Mr. Butler: I have just explained to the Committee that the Government cannot find a workable or desirable method of controlling the entry of Irish immigrants into this country. The answer to the hon. Member, therefore, is "Yes." [HON. MEMBERS: "Colour bar."] It is not a colour bar at all. The Bill is applied to citizens of the Commonwealth, whatever colour they may be. The exception is this Irish question, which has proved to be an anomaly in the past. I am very ready to make it quite clear that it is an anomaly, and that it is being carried forward because we can find no solution to it. The more clearly we can accent that situation—at the opening of the Committee stage; and that is why I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition for raising this—the more easily we can discuss the Bill in a dispassionate manner.
I have done my best to answer the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. We have had this matter before us for several years. When the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the question of consultation, I can assure him that we have been in touch with overseas Governments. For example, we were very much in touch with them in 1958 and 1959 on their methods of control, which were very effective and which we hope they will be able to continue. We have since had continuous consultations


with Governments overseas, not just in sending the Bill to them, although I am not prepared to deny or confirm the dates when communications took place between Governments as was Sir Grantley Adams. That is not usual in communications between Commonwealth or Colonial Governments and the home country. It is not usual, and I am not going to fall into the error of naming dates.
We all have perfect confidence in the nobility of character and the general bearing of Sir Grantley Adams, and although I do not wish to go further into this matter, I must add that it became quite clear to us over the course of the passage of time that they could not find the chance of controlling their emigrants from their countries. A decision, therefore, had to be taken by the British Government. We acknowledge that the decision is unpalatable. We took it. It is our decision, and now we have taken it we hope that we can make this Bill work to the best possible effect.

Mr. Gordon Walker: The right hon. Gentleman has, in effect, just rebuked Sir Grantley Adams, by implication, for giving the date of the passage of a communication between this Government and his own. Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that on 14th November the British Prime Minister did exactly the same thing? The Prime Minister said that communications had been made to Commonwealth Governments some weeks before the right hon. Gentleman announced it to his own party conference. If what was done by our own Prime Minister is perfectly right, then surely what Sir Grantley Adams did was right.

Mr. Butler: I am not aware that the Prime Minister of this country gave the exact date, but if the right hon. Gentleman cares to communicate with me about it I will look into the matter.

Mr. Nigel Fisher: I did not raise this matter before because I did not want to interrupt the Front Bench speakers. Although they raised the Irish problem, it is, technically, quite impossible to discuss that problem on an Amendment which deals with citizens of the United Kingdom and the Colonies.

The Irish are neither of these things. I want to know, from the point of view of back benchers, and since the Irish problem is of great importance in this debate, whether we are to be allowed to talk about Ireland, or whether special dispensation has been allowed to the Front Bench speakers because of the importance of the matter?

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Walker: It would surely be absolutely in order, indeed necessary, to a sensible discussion to compare the rights of United Kingdom citizens and the Colonies under the Bill and compare them with the rights of citizens of the Irish Republic. This must be necessary, I submit, in order to have a sensible discussion. I do not mean that we should necessarily increase the whole field of the debate but that it is necessary to discuss this matter.

The Deputy-Chairman: An opportunity will occur later—on Amendment No. 141—to deal purely with the Irish question. But as the debate has gone, from the two leading speeches from the Front Bench, Ireland has been frequently mentioned and undoubtedly it will not be out of order for hon. Members on the back benches to follow that example to a certain extent, bearing in mind that Amendment No. 141 will be debated later.

Mr. Grimond: Seldom can a worse Bill have been defended by weaker arguments than those we have heard today. What has the nobility of Sir Grantley Adams to do with the question of whether he was consulted about the Bill? The Government must not write things off in this way, for it is not the way for them to gain a congenial and useful Committee stage.
Questions have been asked about Commonwealth consultation, a matter of considerable importance, and all we are told—and no one is impugning the nobility of Sir Grantley Adams—is that various discussions took place. We were not given any concrete answers to those questions. It seems a curious spectacle; the Home Secretary reading in the Irish Times or Irish Independent, over breakfast, the news that the Irish Government are prepared to put some check on immigration. Are we to understand that


that is the way in which the Government are handling the Bill? Is the Home Secretary looking at the various newspapers to find out if other Governments, inside and outside the Commonwealth, will be helpful or otherwise?
We now know that the Bill will not be applied to Ireland. After learning that we are told that if the position becomes desperate, it might be applied to that country. In the same breath we are told that it is impossible to do that, anyway. Yet, despite this, the House of Commons is being asked to consider a Bill for which the Government have offered this sort of opening defence.
Surely this country today needs Irish immigrants. The only question in the Government's mind is whether they can get away with allowing it and, at the same time, not appear to be moved by colour prejudice against the West Indies. But this country, of course, needs West Indian immigration, too. The obvious way out is to drop the whole thing, including the Bill.
It is true that should the economic circumstances change it is conceivable that the need for labour might decrease. We have had no answer to the question whether the Government expect the demand for labour to decrease and no answer has been Riven to whether their statement about the dangers of a slump should be taken seriously or is just another throw away line. It has already been pointed out that should there be the danger of a slump, immigration from Ireland and the West Indies would fall off normally.
What a pathetic attempt it was to try to persuade the House of Commons that opposition against the Bill as a whole is, nevertheless, in favour of part of it if that opposition tries to strike out another part of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman was not on top of his form if he thought that one up—and if someone else thought it up before him I suggest that he should get rid of them. The suggestion that because we want to take out the Colonies from this miserable Bill we are, therefore, in favour of leaving in the Dominions is too childish. It is like a comment to an under seven debating circle.
The right hon. Gentleman must realise that even if we cannot get rid of the

whole Bill, the Amendment, if carried, would certainly do some good. Does the Home Secretary intend to stand by his statement that his obligations to the Colonies are exactly the same as those to the Dominions and Ireland? Because of our special obligations to the Colonies, it is reasonable for us to ask that they should be treated differently from the other areas.
There is a further point of considerable importance with which the right hon. Gentleman did not deal. We have been told time and again that the present situation is not very serious but that it is the great danger of hundreds of thousands of Indians and Pakistanis hanging over us. So it would seem that there would be more like 50,000—rather than 50 million—people pouring in if we do not pass the Bill.
There is a simple way out; keep the Indians and Pakistanis in the Bill and exclude the Colonies. The Home Secretary has said that that would not be fair to the West Indians. But it would not be more unfair on them than the Bill as it stands. It is no good the Home Secretary wringing his hands and saying that when they become a Federation they will all he excluded, because that is what the Bill is all about. That is what the right hon. Gentleman wants. We want to know whether or not it is a serious argument that the Government and their supporters are afraid of massive immigration from countries representing a quarter of the world's population. Let us drop that argument. Let us drop the Irish argument. Let us drop the pretence of consultation, and, finally, let the Government drop the Bill.

Mr. Norman Pannell: This Amendment—I assume that we must speak to it without reference to those which come later—clearly has the object of admitting without restriction all citizens of the Colonies and subjecting to restriction all citizens of the independent countries of the Commonwealth. Therefore, in present circumstances, it would admit without restriction West Indians, Gambians, Mauritians and people from Hong Kong and from various countries in Africa. Also, it would admit without restriction citizens from Malta and Gibraltar.
Hon. Members will observe that, with the exception of the last two countries I have named, Malta and Gibraltar, all the citizens are coloured. Compared with the small population of Malta and Gibraltar, about 350,000, there are the millions in the West Indies and the other countries I have mentioned. The Amendment would subject to control citizens of Australia, Canada and New Zealand.
On this side of the Committee, we have been accused of wishing to introduce a colour bar. It is said that we have that in our minds in our arguments in favour of the Bill. I can only say that right hon. and hon. Members opposite, by this Amendment, are introducing a colour bar in reverse.

Mr. Bowles: On a point of order, Sir William. Have you noticed yet—I have no doubt that you probably will very soon—that the hon. Member is reading every word he says?

The Deputy-Chairman: It is within the experience of the Committee that hon. Members frequently wish to consult notes. It is to be hoped that they will not consult notes to excess.

Mr. Pannell: I thank you for that Ruling, Sir William. I have in my hand only notes of headings, and what I read to the Committee were the names of countries which did not come readily to mind. My notes are very brief, as you can see, Sir William. They are merely headings. It is quite wrong to say that I was reading from these papers.
I emphasise that the people who, under the Amendment, would be admitted without restriction are coloured people, almost without exception, the only other ones to be admitted without restriction being people from Malta and Gibraltar.
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition spoke of the value and purpose of passports issued to citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. I once had a passport issued to me in Nigeria. I returned to this country with that passport and, some years later, I returned to Nigeria with the same passport. The country was then under the control of this country

and had reached much the same stage of development as the West Indies have today. At the port of entry to Nigeria, I was required to give a guarantee that I would not be a charge on public funds and, eventually, I was given an entry permit valid for 21 days and subject to renewal for a further seven days.
It would be the same for the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), I am sure, or for any hon. Member here. That is how things were worked in Nigeria then and how, obviously, they would be worked today in the West Indies and other Colonies for which we are responsible.

Mr. Donald Chapman: This suggestion is trotted out very often, but it really ought to stop. We have taken great trouble to publicise the clear statement of West Indian Governments like that of Jamaica that there is no restriction of the entry of people from Great Britain. The hon. Gentleman does his own cause harm by repeating things which he knows to be untrue.

Mr. Pannell: I have been to the Office of the Commissioner for the West Indies in London to ask what restrictions would be imposed on me if I wanted to go to Jamaica. I was told that I could go as a visitor but that I could not go as a settler without giving a guarantee that I should not be a charge on public funds.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Sir William. The sound amplification system appears not to be carrying anything which my hon. Friend is saying while it allows to be heard the interventions of hon. Members opposite. Might the attention of the appropriate authorities be drawn to this.

Mr. Chapman: What I wanted to point out to the hon. Member for Liverpool. Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell) is that he was informed of the letter of the law which is a law passed under the colonial Government when we were responsible for Jamaica. What has happened is that, as the Premier of Jamaica has made clear in a public statement, his Government decided, when they attained internal self-government, not to apply this law passed under British rule.

Mr. Pannell: Without disclosing who it was who gave me the information, I can tell the Committee that the answer I had from the West Indian office in London was as I have given it. I was informed that if I were an intending settler I should be told exactly the same and that I could not go to that country without giving a guarantee. That is my personal experience, and I give that fact to the Committee as opposed to the theory of the hon. Gentleman.
The Leader of the Opposition made great play about our responsibilities to the people of the West Indies. He spoke about the slave trade and indicated that, perhaps in retribution, we should admit them freely to this country on that account.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: Why the West Indies?

Mr. Pannell: Because of all the countries which would be exempted from control under the Amendment the West Indies are clearly the most important.
I have here some figures about the West Indies and I hope that I shall be allowed to put them. The population of the West Indies today is 3,115,000. Forty years ago it was 1,600,000. So it has doubled in the last forty years. But that is not the only point. The birth rate today varies between 33 and 46 per 1,000. The death rate varies between 9 and 13 per 1,000. That means that, at the present rate, the population will double again in the next twenty-three years.
Do hon. Members opposite suggest that we should take the whole of the surplus, as we have done during the last year? That is the rate at which they are coming in now. We are taking the whole of the surplus population. It is estimated that there will be 70,000 immigrants from the West Indies this year. The right hon. Gentleman said that they came only in relation to vacancies. He spoke of the vacancies in 1956, when 18,800 came in. The figure of vacancies which he gave was, I think, 283,000.
I do not want to be accused of reading too much, so I shall try to rely on my memory. Do hon. Members suggest that the total of 70,000 coming in today is related to the number of jobs available

and that the number of jobs available in this country has risen in that proportion? Obviously not. That argument entirely falls. In fact, there are very few more vacancies today, when 70,000 are coming in, than there were in 1956, when 18,000 came in.
6.0 p.m.
I am trying to reply to the points raised in the debate. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the report of the Medical Officer of Health for Nottingham, a very favourable report so far as immigrants are concerned. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman read in The Times of today the report made by the Medical Officer of Health for Birmingham. I should like to quote from it. According to The Times, he said:
'…I think it is most unfortunate that these people are subjected to housing conditions which are by far the worst in Birmingham. Life in these lodgings in which most of them live is infinitely worse than living in the slums which are being demolished. It is not a matter of colour'.
The Times goes on to say:
The report shows that rising figures of illegitimacy, venereal disease and tuberculosis were all due, in some measure, to the greater number of immigrants in the city.

An Hon. Member: Is that Irish immigrants?

Mr. Pannell: I will come to that.
The Times continues:
The increase in the number of half-caste and West Indian children was producing more social problems than ever, the report states. It points out that in the West Indies and South America more than 60 per cent. of all births are illegitimate and accepted by public opinion.
I shall not weary hon. Members with any more quotations, but I can assure them that there are several which are as unfavourable as those that I have made.
It is clear that conditions are difficult in our major cities where immigrants congregate, in particular where West Indians—I relate myself to the Amendment which refers to West Indians—have congregated, especially in Birmingham and other cities.
Hon. Members opposite are quite unrealistic in their opposition to some control of immigration. They know very well that some control should be exercised, but oppose any suggestion for control. The newspapers generally have


adopted much the same attitude, particularly The Times. The feeling is that something ought to be done, but that any action is unthinkable. It is not so much a case of willing to wound and yet afraid to strike, but of willing to strike and yet afraid to wound.
All right hon. and hon. Members opposite know that this is a serious problem, but they have made no alternative suggestions for solving it. They put forward Amendments which try to destroy the purpose of the Bill. They are not true to their responsibilities by showing such irresponsibility in the face of such a grave problem.

Mr. Victor Yates (Birmingham, Lady-wood): The hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell) has been engaged for such a long time in a campaign favouring the control of immigration, but the case that he has made out this afternoon is not a very good one. The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden), have been engaged in a campaign on immigration which has brought terrific fear to the minds of those already in the city who are anxious to have their families join them.
Why have the figures of immigration increased? The Home Secretary made a speech which, I regret to say, I found extremely nauseating. If he examines the figures, he will find that a considerable number of people have come over here in the past year to join their families. In the City of Birmingham no fewer than 1,000 children have been brought over in the last year because the campaign which has been carried on has caused their parents to fear that they would not be able to join their families.

Mr. N. Pannell: We cannot consider this problem in miniature. Can the hon. Gentleman say how many of the 57,000 West Indians who have come here this year were women and children? If he can, we will have a proper appreciation of the problem.

Mr. Yates: I do not know. I should think that the figure is probably 50 per cent.

Mr. C. Royle: According to the figures from the office of the West Indian Commissioner, the number of depend-

ants who have come here this year is about 43 per cent. of the total.

Mr. Yates: I said that I thought that the figure was about 50 per cent.
I am looking at this problem from Birmingham's point of view. Birmingham takes about one-third of the immigrants coming to this country. Therefore, we have the right to say whether or not this is a grave problem. I agree that immigration creates problems which the city has to consider and tackle.
I was referring to West Indians, but I have here a September communiqué from the Indian Embassy, in which it is stated:
A total of 12,277 passports and endorsements were granted to the United Kingdom during the period January to June, 1961. There was an increase of 2,110 passports and endorsements in 1961 as compared with the corresponding period in 1960. Asked what accounted for the increase in the issue of passports, the Parliamentary Secretary replied that the families of those who had found jobs in the United Kingdom wanted to join them and this fact accounted for the increase.
In my judgment the campaign which has been carried on by hon. Members opposite has contributed to the increase.
On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Selly Oak explained why Birmingham should be excluded from a consideration of this problem. He referred to what he called the housing problem. Those of us who have been on the local authority know what a grave problem housing is in Birmingham, but it has not been created by immigration. In 1955, before immigration began, 50,000 houses out of just over 300,000 were considered unfit for human habitation. The hon. Member for Selly Oak said:
Slum clearance was in sight in Birmingham, but now it is not. A tremendous number of new slums have recently been created. It is easy for hon. Members to gibe, but I challenge them to come with me to Birmingham, where I can show them people living in the most appalling circumstances."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1961; Vol. 649, c. 741.]
I know Birmingham. I represent an area in the centre of Birmingham which probably has more slums than any other part of the city. When I was a member of the city council, we protested about these 50,000 unfit houses, but the fact is that the authority is not able to deal with the problem as some of us


would wish. The representations that we have made to the Government show quite clearly that it is not the immigrants who have caused this problem.

Mr. Leonard Cleaver: Why does not the hon. Member get the Socialist-controlled council to do something about it?

Mr. Yates: The hon. Member knows perfectly well that we made representations even before the question of immigration arose.

Mr. William Yates: On a point of order. Is it in order to discuss the affairs of the City of Birmingham here?

The Deputy-Chairman: I was beginning to feel myself that the hon. Member was going rather too far in that direction.

Mr. V. Yates: I appreciate your observation, Sir William. I am trying to relate my remarks to the fact that in the City of Birmingham we have 30,000 West Indians. The question whether these people can be adequately housed is one about which the House of Commons ought not to have any misundersanding. A five-year registration is necessary before these people can be considered. Hon. Members must know that this year the city council can allocate only 26 houses to those who could qualify as immigrants, as coloured persons.

Mr. Harold Gurden: The hon. Member has referred to me on no less than four or five occasions. I do not object very much to any of his references. He has given me credit for bringing this serious matter—which the hon. Member himself agrees is serious—to the notice of the House and of the country. May I ask the hon. Member why it is so wrong to point out that uncontrolled immigration adds seriously to the housing problem? I have never said, nor have I seen that anyone else has said, that it caused the housing problem in Birmingham, but why is it wrong to say that it has aggravated it?

Mr. Yates: The hon. Member said much more than that in his speech to which I have referred. Many of us on this side who represent Birmingham thoroughly resent and object to his remarks. It is not true that worse slums than ever before have been created as a

result of immigration. I am seeking to give reasons why West Indians and others should be excluded from the operation of the Bill.
We have been told about crime in the City of Birmingham. The hon. Member for Selly Oak knows that the Chief Constable of Birmingham recently issued a report for the city. I challenge the hon. Member or anybody else from Birmingham to quote me any reference in that report to immigrants and crime.
In replying to the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) about crime in Birmingham, the Home Secretary said on an earlier occasion:
It is the view of the Chief Constable of Birmingham that, in general, the coloured population of the city are no less law-abiding than the other inhabitants. I have been in touch with the hon. Members representing the city on this and other aspects."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th July, 1961; Vol. 643, c. 146.]
I am surprised that some of those hon. Members should have used that argument on Second Reading, or that the hon. Member for Selly Oak should have suggested that a great deal of crime was being committed in Birmingham and that the coloured immigrants were to some extent responsible for it.
I support the Amendment, particularly because I believe that Birmingham could never have progressed in the manner it has done during the last ten years without both the Irish and the West Indians.

Mr. John Hall: Tory rule.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Yates: The hon. Member can call it Tory rule if he likes, but, apparently, it will not be Tory rule any longer, because the good work that has to be done is suddenly to be brought to a halt. My right hon. Friend gave some figures about employment and vacancies—

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: The hon. Member said that this work will soon be brought to a halt. Is he arguing on the basis that the proposal of the Bill is to stop all immigration or to control it?

Mr. Yates: I appreciate that the Bill is not designed to stop all immigration. Nevertheless, it will make it extremely difficult in future for West Indians to come, as they can now, to this country, to see the work and to be absorbed.

Mr. John Hall: I have listened with interest to the hon. Member's argument and am trying to follow what he is saying. Why will it be so much more difficult for any citizen of the Commonwealth to come here if there are jobs available to be filled?

Mr. Yates: I want them to have the opportunity to come without all these restrictions. I use Birmingham as an example and I see no justification for the restriction.
Looking at the national situation, the total number of persons registered as unemployed in the whole of Great Britain at 13th November was 387,339, a percentage rate of unemployment of 1·7. The percentage of coloured immigrants unemployed certainly was 5·6. Birmingham is a specific area which is concerned with these problems. The total number of coloured Commonwealth immigrants unemployed there at the time of the survey on 7th November was 251, 158 men and 93 women. At 13th November, the total registered coloured employed were 13,763, representing 1·8 per cent. of the total unemployed in the Birmingham area. Unfilled vacancies in Birmingham numbered 4,549.
It is utterly ridiculous to suggest that our arrangements in Birmingham have broken down, for the simple reason that these people have come and are being employed. We have in Birmingham a liaison department for coloured persons whose staff has been increased to three liaison officers. Wonderful work is being done in integration. There has never been any difficulty in Birmingham, as there has been in some parts of the country. It is an area which is vitally affected. Therefore, I want the West Indians to be allowed to come to this country and to Birmingham. We are grateful for the help they have given in the hospitals. There is one hospital in Birmingham where the ratio of nurses is about six coloured to two white.
It is a great tragedy that the Bill should have been introduced without the fullest consultation and careful thought. I deny that Birmingham cannot cope with this problem. Apart from the question of the immigrants coming in or not, there is no doubt that we have problems in Birmingham which the Government have failed to solve. They might have done something vital and dynamic in

providing Birmingham with a new town when we were pressing our problems upon them long before immigrants came to Birmingham.
We have created 61,000 jobs in Birmingham during the past five years. This work is going on and must continue if we are to have industrial expansion. Somebody must do this work. If we are prepared to bring people into this country to do difficult and irksome work we should show them consideration in other respects as well. To say, "We will take you only when we want you" is not very ethical conduct for a country which has boasted of its Commonwealth and its close relationship with the Colonies
I want to make clear that, although I support the Amendment, I do not accept the Home Secretary's interpretation that this means that I am, or anybody else is, in favour of the Clause or of the Bill as it stands. It is part of Parliamentary practice not only to propose Amendments, but, even when they have been proposed, to vote later against the Clause standing part of the Bill and against the Bill itself. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will remain firm throughout the Committee stage on every one of their Amendments. We are trying to improve the Bill, but, as the Guardian said this morning, this is a bad Bill. It is unnecessary and it ought not to have been introduced. I hope that there will be a great deal of support for this Amendment, which will at least limit the evil that the Bill can do.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I am sure that immigration has brought great problems to Birmingham but I am beginning to hope that I shall not hear about them again for a long time—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because there is a very much wider problem here than one relating to any one city.
The problem should be considered on a very wide plane. It has been said, and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Victor Yates) himself said it at the end of his speech, that there was no consultation before the Bill was introduced. As one who has been complaining for a long time to his right hon. Friends that they were spending too long


on consultation and consideration, it is specially my duty to come to their support on this occasion.
We have had answers for years past to questions about Commonwealth immigration that the Government were in consultation with Commonwealth Governments and that the matter was under active consideration, and so the matter drifted on from year to year. I should like to illustrate that by a quotation which has some interest on its own account. This was the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs, then Mr. Henry Hopkinson, speaking on 5th November, 1954, having been pressed by hon. Members opposite to do something about Commonwealth immigration. I am sorry not to see the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) here. He played an honourable part in all this.
Thus pressed, the Minister said:
We are not at the moment in a position to make a statement, but it is our intention to do so as soon as we have been able to go into all these intricate problems, involving the possibility of legislation, if that is thought necessary, to impose some measure of regulation or control upon this flow.
Then follows a passage which, I think, will appeal to hon. Members:
In case hon. Members may think that we are merely giving this what is described as 'active' consideration, I would explain that it is far more than that. We are very well aware of the importance of the problem, of its urgency and of the deep concern which it causes in many parts of the country and we are determined to press on with our work and to see that a satisfactory solution is evolved."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th November, 1954; Vol. 532, c. 831.]

Mr. H. Hynd: It does not say anything about consultation.

Mr. Bell: I did not say that it did. The hon. Member is one step behind, as so often in his political life. What it shows is that as long as seven years ago the Government were promising urgent consideration. They said that they were considering legislation. Therefore, it can hardly be said, as the hon. Member for Ladywood said, that we now have a rush of immigrants because they feel themselves presently threatened by some imposition of control.

Mr. John Diamond: Does the hon. Member not recollect that when he opened that part of his speech he hung it all on the question whether or

not there should be consultation. I listened very carefully and all his remarks were related to that.

Mr. Bell: The hon. Member was not listening carefully enough. I said that there had been years of consultation. I had dealt with consultation and I was then dealing with consideration.

Mr. Michael Foot: Would not the hon. Member agree that after all the consideration he talks about as having gone on over all these years, the Government view was expressed from the Treasury Bench in debate in the House that such a Bill as this was quite unnecessary?

Mr. Bell: The hon. Member has certainly simplified that. What was then said from the Treasury Bench was that the Government were not then satisfied that such a Measure was inevitable. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, yes. They have been all along extremely reluctant to take this step. None the less, they have been poised upon the brink, though not wishing to take it until the step was forced upon them. I am perfectly satisfied that there has been steady consultation with Governments and, what is more, two of those Governments, in response to requests, have introduced a voluntary scheme of limitation, that is, the Governments of India and Pakistan.
I am satisfied that the West Indian Government were repeatedly invited to introduce such a scheme of voluntary limitation and they flatly refused to do so. I do not think that anybody here is in a position to deny that fact. This is why we are faced with this problem tonight. I recognise, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, that if we tackle this problem at all we have to split up the unitary conception of citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. I do not think that we should shrink from that, disagreeable though it is, if we are satisfied for other reasons that some action is necessary. I am so satisfied.
6.30 p.m.
This is one of those questions where principle and degree are intertwined. Those who want to be absolute in their opposition to limiting Commonwealth immigration must be prepared to hid up indefinitely and never yield their principle. There are some hon. Members in


that category, and perhaps the Leader of the Opposition is one of them. They earn the respect one always gives to intransigence. But I do not think there are many. Most would agree with The Times when it said, in extremely equivocal form, I am sorry to say:
…if it is indisputable that a small and overcrowded island may not be able indefinitely to keep open its doors to an unlimited influx from the almost inexhaustible reservoirs of population which the rest of the Commonwealth affords …
If that is so, then at some point we have to say that it is right to impose a control.
If that is so, then this is not a matter really of principle, but of degree; and the question we have to ask ourselves in practical terms is whether we have reached the point where we have to do something. I want to tell the Committee why I think that we have reached that point, and why we have to do this, more especially in relation to the West Indies, which are the subject matter of the Amendment.
The right hon. Member for West Indies—I am sorry; the slip was entirely accidental. It could have been premeditated, but it was not. The right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) said that the West Indies deserve special consideration from us because of the background of the slave trade. If this were a problem which dated from past generations, something which had its roots in those events, I would see some substance in the argument, but what is the nature of the problem?
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell) dealt with the figures. The West Indies have always had a high birth rate. So have India and Pakistan. In the past, the birth rate used to be balanced by a high death rate. The birth rate in the West Indies has been about 37 per 1,000 for a long time. In 1930, the death rate was 25 per 1,000, so that there was a relatively small increase rate of about 1·2 per cent.—high compared with Great Britain, but low for tropical people. The problem has arisen because the death rate in the West Indies has fallen from 25 per 1,000 to about 10 per 1,000. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Yes, it is

splendid, but that is what we have done for these countries. We have brought Western medicine and sanitation to them—above all, D.D.T. That is the principal factor.
Of course, by doing that we have enormously raised the increase rate, so that now the natural rate of increase of, for example, Jamaica is about 2·8 per cent. per annum, which is a fabulous increase rate. That is what has happened during the last thirty years.

Mr. John Baird: Is it not a fact that, whilst the death rate has gone down, creating a problem, we have also created a problem by building up a one-industry economy in the West Indies, and that it is only by supplying capital for new industries that the labour can be absorbed there?

Mr. Bell: I am not going to avoid that point. I intended to come to it.
First, I want to state the problem, because one should be sensible about this. It has nothing to do with taking people to the islands through the slave trade. This problem has arisen all over the world in the last thirty years, and it is due to the fall in the death rate caused by Western science.
In another place, at the end of the last Session, it was brilliantly epitomised by a noble Lord when he said that whereas it had taken the world 200,000 years to reach a population of 2,500 million, that would increase by 2,000 million—almost double—in thirty years. That is the staggering background against which we must consider these policies.
What are we to do about this problem? It is new in one sense because of its intensity, but it was recognised more than twenty years ago by the West India Royal Commission, which wrote this immensely prescient sentence:
The sharp contrast between the present birth rates of tropical peoples and those of most peoples of European stock is, indeed, a phenomenon of the most profound importance, with far-reaching implications.
That was written when the process I described a moment ago had only just started. The increase rate in the West Indies has nearly doubled since those words were written. In fact, I see this as now the dominant problem in the world, and I am, therefore, absolutely


convinced that we are on the right lines in introducing this Bill at present, however reluctant we may be to do so. I say quite frankly that three years ago I would not have supported a Bill of this character, but I think that one realises now that it is no good talking about vacancies pulling in immigrants and saying that the influx will vary according to the economic situation.
Of course, it will vary, but only marginally, and the trend is bound to be upwards because these countries are bursting with population, which has to go somewhere. Or else, of course, these countries have to face up to the problem which exists inside them. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Baird) put a point which I can answer directly. His question was: is not the answer to this problem to raise the economic standards of these countries?
Although, some years ago, I would have agreed with that, in my view now—and this, in a way, is why I support the Bill—we have reached a point in world affairs where, over a considerable part of the globe, it is no longer possible to proceed that way round. I will buttress this argument. The rise in population in these parts is so dramatic that it swamps economic development. Therefore, we have to start the other way round—with family limitation, otherwise everything is finished. [HON. MEMBERS:" Hear, hear."] I am not giving a mildly eccentric view. This has been recognised by Mr. Nehru, who has allocated more money in each five-year plan for family limitation. I should like to read what he has said, because it bears on the Amendment:
We have found that we can never plan for the nation, and our Five-Year Plans have no meaning, if the population grows at this rate.
Economic development there has been swamped.
Again, President Ayub Khan of Pakistan said recently:
If we continue to increase at the present rate it will ultimately lead to a standard of living which will be little better than animals.
That, too, is a comment on the suggestion that we can, by economic development, in some way short circuit this problem.
Is it true of the West Indies that we ought to solve the problem by economic

development? In this, the West India Royal Commission is a perfect authority. Two most distinguished members of the party opposite sat on the Commission. I knew them both. This is no partisan approach. They wrote:
We regard a reduction in the number of births as an indispensable condition … of improving or even maintaining the standard of life in the West Indies.
The Royal Commission recommended various economic proposals to better the conditions of the West Indies, but said that they would be
only a superficial palliative, a mere postponement of the evil day
unless the rate of growth could be limited. It went on:
The material betterment of the West Indies must be accompanied by, and is to a large extent conditional on a moral resurgence among the people themselves.
We are introducing a Bill to limit immigration from the West Indies. What is our objective in doing that? On our domestic considerations we are justified in preventing an uncontrolled influx of this problem into our own country unless it can be shown against us that there is a reason of quite transcendental importance why, in the interests of others, we should allow it to happen and that we would help the West Indies by allowing them unrestricted immigration into this country.
Let us get the price clear first. Every other country has shut the door already. That is the trouble.

Mr. Chapman: Mr. Chapman indicated assent.

Mr. Bell: The hon. Member is kind enough to agree with me. We are left alone to take the whole population surplus if we propose to do it. I do not know what it is, but I would have said that it was about 70,000 a year. This year's influx is probably somewhat exaggerated by anticipation. This is a tremendous influx and it would give us a population of West Indian extraction by the end of the century of at least 1½ million, and probably many more.

Mr. Chapman: It is when we come to this issue that we find the difference between us. In countries like Jamaica we are buying ten years' time in order that they can begin to solve this problem for themselves. We are not trying to buy time to the end of the century.

Mr. Bell: The hon. Member is trying to buy time for a considerable period and I suggest that it is wrong to buy time because of the extracts from the Report of the West India Royal Commission which I have read. The members of the Royal Commission said that they came away with one dominant impression—that of a reliance upon other people. Paraphrasing, but doing so quite conscientiously, they said that there was no hope of a reduction in births unless something dramatically brought home to the people of the West Indies the fact that this was the only solution.
How are we to bring it home dramatically? The Bill is too weak, but it can help. I do not believe that Mr. Manley, or Mr. Bustamente, in Jamaica, has any intention whatever of tackling the problem unless forced to do so. The name of Sir Grantley Adams has been frequently mentioned in the debate and I would like to be fair to him and say that he is one of the few men in the West Indies who has had the honesty to face up to this issue. I am a little surprised that Sir Grantley Adams has opposed the Bill, because he opened the Family Planning Association conference in the West Indies last year. His wife is the president of the Association and Sir Grantley very courageously said at the time that the West Indian people must not think that they could go on indefinitely exporting their problem. He said that it was time they faced up to it. That was a very courageous thing to say and I absolutely agree with it. But I do not think that they will face up to it so long as they can export it.
It is right for ourselves and right for them that we should now do something which is dramatic. The Bill is not dramatic—I wish it were—but at least it will come home to the people of the West Indies that they must tackle this problem at the right end, appreciating that any idea of economic investment and development doing it for them is purely illusory.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. V. Yates: Why is that argument not applied to the Irish, who come here in greater numbers?

Mr. Bell: I am speaking to the Amendment and there is nothing about the Irish in the Amendment.
I want now to say a few words about ourselves and why we should reject the Amendment. Here, again, one should be honest. It is not a question of colour and I never thought that it was. Pigmentation is a protection against strong sunlight and nobody in his right mind would think that it had anything to do with this problem. But it is a question of the cultural levels of tropical peoples, and that is an inescapable fact. What is the consequence to this country of a large influx of West Indians? If they come in in small numbers, they could be and I think that they are successfully—[Interruption.] I gave way to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) and I hope that he will now listen. One does not gain by these brawling interruptions.
If they come in in small numbers, they can be assimilated into the life of the country. If they come in in tens of thousands, they clot together in communities and preserve the characteristics which they brought with them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] It is true. What is the very important characteristic which they bring with them? It is their completely promiscuous method of breeding. Everybody knows that that is true. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shocking."] I am surprised that hon. Members should not like to hear that said. It is common ground between the two sides that the illegitimacy rate in the West Indies is between 60 and 70 per cent.—those are the figures of the Royal Commission.

Mr. James MacColl: The hon. Member said that the history of the West Indies was not relevant to the existing problem, but he is now indicating one way in which it is very relevant. It is precisely because we did not want our slaves to marry that their habits are not sanctioned in quite the same way as ours in this country. It is precisely because we created a culture pattern in that country to suit our own economic convenience that these problems arise today.

Mr. Bell: There is a shadow of a point there. I say a shadow because it is quite illusory to imagine that in their native communities in West Africa, whence most of them came, these people had the institution of monogamous marriage. This is one of those simple


arguments which are found on examination to be not very valid, but there is slight justification inasmuch as these people were taken to be the slaves of a European community and might well have been taught the institution of Christian marriage. I concede that they were not and that there is much in the hon. Member's case, but we have to consider this problem pragmatically and, according to the Royal Commission, 60 or 70 per cent. of the children in the West Indies are illegitimate. Marriage is rare.

Mr. Chapman: Mr. Chapman indicated dissent.

Mr. Bell: That is the fact. If the hon. Member studies the figures he will see that, unfortunately, the marriage rate is still declining. I do not suppose that the hon. Member is really interested in the facts of this subject, but it is the truth that the marriage rate, inconceivably low, is still declining.

Mr. Denis Howell: rose—

Mr. Bell: I have given way several times and I must conclude.

Mr. Howell: They are all getting married in Birmingham, so we had better get more of them over here.

Mr. Bell: I wish that that were true.

Mr. Howell: It is true.

Mr. Bell: These people come here and live in communities, and retain their characteristics. This is the answer to the hon. Gentleman. I took the trouble to make some inquiries about this. On making inquiries from the great national children's societies in this country, I found that as long as three years ago they began to impose a quota of four coloured to six white children in their nurseries to prevent swamping. I recently asked what these children were. I was told that nearly all were half-castes.
As a rule, children of pure blood, although illegitimate, are kept by their mothers because that is the normal state of affairs in those islands, but the fate of half-caste children is tragic because nobody wants them. They go into the care of nurseries in this country, and there they grow up as illegitimate half-caste

children, knowing no parents and no homes.
According to my information, these half-caste children represent four out of ten children in all the nurseries in this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] This is borne out by the figures recently released by the Medical Officer for the County of London, which show that illegitimacy in London has risen from about 10 per cent. to 11·4 per cent. in the last year, whereas in the rest of the country it has been for a long time and remains at about 5·1 per cent.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: Analyse the figures.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: What about the American soldiers?

Mr. Bell: I will analyse the figures. I have the figures for last year, and the analysis of this year's figures may be much more dramatic. These are the figures given by the Medical Officer for the County of London. At the five control points, illegitimate births from United Kingdom mothers totalled 1,270. From Southern Irish mothers, the figure was 455.

Mr. C. Royk: On a point of order. Have the figures which the hon. Gentleman is quoting anything to do with the Amendment? The hon. Gentleman is dealing with the illegitimacy rate in London, without any reference to any people who have come here from the Colonies. I submit that this has nothing to do with the Amendment.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. James H. Hoy): I assumed that the hon. Member was using these figures in support of his argument that coloured people ought not to be permitted to come here, but I hope that he will come to the point of the Amendment.

Mr. Bell: I was coming to it, Mr. Hoy. I read the first two sets of figures because it is no good reading the third set without a basis for comparison. Illegitimate births from United Kingdom mothers totalled 1,270; from Eire mothers, 455; and from West Indian mothers, 236. These figures show that Irish and West Indian immigrants were responsible for approximately 700 as against 1,270 illegitimate births in the Administrative County of London.

Mr. Lipton: There is no restriction on the Irish.

Mr. Ronald Bell: The hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) was one of the hon. Members who, in past years, pressed most strongly for something to be done about this. If he changes sides as often as that, he will find himself as editor of The Times before much longer. I gave that analysis of the figures only because I was asked to do so.
The point is the broad one, that the illegitimacy figures in London are enormously enhanced by the rate of immigration from Ireland and from tropical areas. We ought, in our own interests as a country, to control the rate of immigration so that the people who come in can be quickly absorbed into the life and standards of this country, and will not come in in a flood so that they live together in communities and remain insulated from the assimilating influences to which they would otherwise be subject.
That is the justification for the Bill, and I have dealt with the point about excluding the West Indies by examining the situation there and showing that it will be in the long-term interests of those territories to pass this Measure so that they join Mr. Nehru and the Government of Pakistan in an energetic campaign to control their own problem at home, from which, I am sorry to say, until now they have completely stood aside.

Mr. Charles Royle: Because of the view we take of the Bill, I should have thought that it would have been the duty of hon. Members on this side of the Committee to delay the passage of the Bill and that we would be doing a good job if we succeeded in our efforts. I am therefore grateful to the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) for assisting us in this ideal. In the 35 or 40 minutes during which he has occupied the Floor of the House he has greatly assisted us in delaying the passage of the Bill.

Mr. Ronald Bell: May I take it from that that it is the intention of the hon. Gentleman merely to delay the proceedings of the Committee?

Mr. Royle: No, I am expressing my thanks to the hon. Member for setting an example.
The hon. Gentleman denied that the Bill had anything to do with the colour bar. He devoted part of his speech to advocating a cultural bar. That is almost as dangerous. I consider that we should open our doors to the people who have not had the advantages of culture that we have had and thereby help to educate them. By introducing the Bill in its present terms, the Government are handicapping that progress.
The hon. Member also devoted a considerable part of his speech to birth control. We have heard nothing like it for a long time and I am sure that tomorrow morning he will receive a hearty vote of thanks from the Family Planning Association. Not that I object. On the contrary, I think that there is wisdom in what he said. But, after all, we have something more to discuss, and I want to bring the debate back to the terms of the Amendment.
I was deeply disappointed this afternoon. We had two powerful speeches, one from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the other from the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), and wedged in between them a completely unconvincing speech from the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. I am extremely disappointed with him. It has been my lot for three or four years to consult him occasionally with regard to immigration, and we have, together with other hon. Members, discussed the details of the immigration problem. Knowing what he has said in the past, I heard him making that speech this afternoon with a great deal of disappointment.
7.0 p.m.
What caused the right hon. Gentleman to do it? One can suggest only two things, one of which was referred to by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in brief terms—whether there was any relationship between this question and the negotiations on the Common Market. The other one is the pressure which has been brought to bear upon him at successive Conservative Party conferences, and particularly by a small coterie of back benchers in this House. I feel that this is a complete fall from grace on the part of the right hon. Gentleman and of his right hon. Friend who is now Leader of the House in that


they have given way to this terrible—I can name no other word—agitation from the benches behind them.
Let me make it clear that, along with my hon. and right hon. Friends, I am not trimming at all. I want a complete open door for the whole of the British Commonwealth into this country, but we are at this stage discussing an Amendment which deals with a certain section of the Commonwealth, and that section comprises the places which we still call Colonies.
May I say in passing that the hon. Member for Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell) made an accusation that hon. Members on this side of the Committee have placed an alternative before the Home Secretary or the Committee. It is not true. I had the opportunity of addressing the House during the Second Reading debate, and, without going into the matter in detail again, perhaps I should be permitted to repeat that I had made to the Home Secretary, along with other hon. Members, suggestions on dispersal, and things like that could have been dealt with very many years ago. That is my answer to the hon. Member for Kirkdale.
In this Amendment, we are specifically discussing the question of the Colonies, and therefore I make no apology for concentrating, as has been the case with so many speeches today, on the West Indies, because the West Indies is the outstanding example among the Colonies. In the first place, let me say that the reason why this Amendment has been tabled from this side of the Committee is because, while not departing from the principle, we recognise that there is some difference between the Colonies and the rest of the Commonwealth. That is due to the fact that this country has a greater responsibility for the people in the Colonies than it has for those in the rest of the Commonwealth.
Those of us who know something of the West Indies know something of the conditions which prevail there, and those conditions, whether they be social or economic or both, are still our responsibility. Not only that, but they are conditions—let us face it—which, to some degree, we have created in the days that have gone by. I wonder how many hon. Members, and there must be

quite a number, have had the experience of going to the delightful north coast of Jamaica, with all the wonder and beauty of Montego Bay and that string of high luxury hotels along that coast, patronised by rich Americans and film stars. Did they also see, within 800 yards at the most of those luxury hotels, some of the worst slums in the world? Has any hon. Member who has gone along the road between Kingston and Spanish Town looked in at the shanty town on the way?
These things are our responsibility. We have been governing that territory and owning that territory for 300 years, and if bad housing exists today in Jamaica and in other parts of the West Indies the responsibility lies heavily on our shoulders for the fact that these conditions exist. Let it be said that improvements have been made in recent years, when the West Indians have had a greater share themselves than they ever had in the past, and it is they who are being responsible for the changed conditions which now obtain.
What about the poor economic circumstances and conditions of the West Indians? For years and years the main economy of Jamaica has been dependent on sugar, and we all know that apart from the actual growing, harvesting and the work which takes place in the sugar factories, there is no industry and it is practically a one-crop economy. Because of the reliance on that industry, we find Jamaica and other West Indian islands in their present economic circumstances.
Let us look at the question of trade agreements. Every time representatives come from the West Indies to discuss matters of sugar prices and supplies and citrus prices and supplies, we keep hearing all the time of the battles going on behind the scenes in order to get the best terms possible in the agreements that are to be made. Is it not our responsibility, and, over the years, ought we not to have seen to it that the economy of the territories was greatly improved by giving much better terms than we have been liable to do in the past?
Because of these social and economic problems, we find these people looking for somewhere else to go. As I had the temerity to say on Second Reading,


there is a search all the time for better conditions of life and a lifting of their standards so as to obtain a fuller life than is possible in the conditions in these territories. Therefore, our doors should be opened wide to them, and this Committee should be taking no step whatever to limit the opportunities to be given to these people to increase their standard of living. Why should we restrict entry at this time? Is there any real reason for it?
There was put into my hands today a summary of a document which has been prepared by the British Market Research Bureau for Flamingo magazine. The Bureau has been carrying out some careful researches into the circumstances and living conditions of the West Indian population in this country, and I want to quote one or two figures from the report. First, I want to refer to the size of West Indian households in this country. That may be an answer to the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South. The average West Indian household, as determined by the survey, consists of 2·72 people. At that time there were an estimated 100,000 West Indian households in the country. The average net income of those households was approximately £10 15s. a week, which is about 66 per cent. of the average income of the whole population. In only 2 per cent. of those households in which there was a male at the head was £8 or less earned each week. In 90 per cent. of the households with males at the head there was an income of £20 a week or more.
Now let us consider the question of employment. Nearly 62 per cent. of the heads of households interviewed had semi-skilled or skilled occupants—bus drivers, conductors, machine operators, fitters, electricians, and so on. Eighteen per cent. had unskilled jobs—porters or labourers, for example—and 5 per cent. were professional workers, self-employed or employed as foremen, supervisors or charge hands.
We can bring the unemployment position up to date, because the Report was published only on 4th December. Of the informants questioned, 3 per cent. said they were unemployed at the time they were interviewed. The national average of employment, according to the

last Ministry of Labour figure, is 1·7 per cent., and the unemployment figure for Scotland is 3·2. The proportion of immigrants who had been unemployed at some time during the last twelve months was 23 per cent., but about half of those had been unemployed for less than nine weeks in the year. Only 19 per cent. of the informants who had arrived in the United Kingdom before 1959 had been unemployed in the previous twelve months.
I want to make one more reference, concerning accommodation. No less than 17 per cent. of the informants owned their accommodation. In the London area 4 per cent. owned their own accommodation, as compared with 8 per cent. of all households in the L.C.C. area. In the Manchester and Birmingham areas, 31 per cent. owned their own accommodation, as compared with 37 per cent. for all the households in the conurbations covered by the Rowntree Trust Housing Study in 1961. About half those people paying rent paid an average of £2 10s. a week. Most West Indians tended to live in small units of one or two rooms. Ninety per cent. had a private bathroom, or shared one, and 92 per cent. had the use of a separate kitchen.
These are the people who have come to us, and this is the way in which they are living and behaving here. In the light of those figures, is any hon. Member prepared to suggest that those people are a burden on the economy and the social life of this country? These people come to us as of right. They are colonial people and are British subjects. The independent territories have a greater responsibility for their own social and economic conditions than do the people of the Colonies.
I suggest that the Colonies are our direct responsibility and that it is part of our responsibility to see that if their people wish to improve their conditions and raise their standard of living they should be given an opportunity to do so by being allowed to come to this country. I have become a little worried about the Government. I remember all the circumstances leading to the negotiations concerning the Common Market and the accusations of a lack of consultation. There is no doubt that there has been a failure to consult other Governments in this connection. I begin to wonder


whether at last the Tories have made up their minds that there is nothing left for them in the Commonwealth. I wonder whether they have now reached the stage, when exploitation is finished, of thinking that the Commonwealth means nothing, and that the thousands of millions of people in the Commonwealth should now have no relationship with us because they can no longer be exploited as they have been in the past.
There would seem to be some strength in that suspicion, and I am sorry to find it so. As I said in the Second Reading debate, when we have finished with the Bill—and we are now only in the early stages of Committee—the country and the Commonwealth will know which party is the friend of the Commonwealth. It will not be the party opposite. As we now enter upon many days of debate and discussion of this issue, we ought to set the example and say that, whatever the Bill may be in the end, it is a shocking Bill and that it will be a disgrace to this country and to the House of Commons if we pass it. I hope that we shall lead the way in the right direction this evening by accepting the Amendment as a token of the Committee's feelings in the matter.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. John Hall: I had not intended to intervene, because I did not have the pleasure of hearing the opening speeches dealing with the Amendment. I am moved to intervene, however, because I feel that some speakers have missed the real problem which lies before us. I do not apologise for referring to my constituency, because those hon. Members with special constituency interests have dwelt at some length on them. In High Wycombe we have had an increasing number of immigrants in the last two years, Today, it is estimated that between 8 per cent. and 10 per cent. of the population of High Wycombe consists of immigrants from Pakistan and the West Indies.
High Wycombe is no stranger to incursions of immigrants from different parts of the world. After the last war we had them from Yugoslavia and Poland, and because they came in quickly they created the same kind of tensions and housing and social problems as are being created owing to the rate at which today's immigrants are arriving. The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. C. Royle) said that we owed

a great deal to the West Indies and that we ought to have a completely open door. I do not see why he should have restricted his argument to the West Indies. The same problem applies in Pakistan.

Mr. C. Royle: I did not restrict it, but I was speaking to the Amendment.

Mr. Hall: I apologise to the hon. Member. Nevertheless, I do not think that that is the point. The real question is: at what rate can this country accept immigrants, from whatever source, so that they can be absorbed into the community with the minimum amount of dislocation and social tension? A year or so ago, together with the late Mayor of High Wycombe, I was instrumental in helping to form a committee known as the Overseas Consultative Committee. Its purpose is to try to help immigrants, from whatever source, to adapt themselves to the life of the community into which they have come, to try to sort out problems as between the indigenous residents and the immigrants, and solve them before they go too far and become out of hand.
That committee has done some useful work, but it is becoming very overworked. If we look at it from the point of view of the ordinary citizen, especially of a citizen in a small community, we can understand the problems. Here, in a comparatively small town—and in other places in the neighbourhood and in big towns—people who are suddenly confronted over a very short period of time with a number of arrivals who form a very useful addition to the labour force in the area, but whose general background, whose habits and ways of life and thought are radically different from the community which they have joined.
A few people of that kind can come into a community, and it does not make a great deal of difference. They can be absorbed and get used to the community and adapt themselves. But, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), if they come in large numbers they tend to congregate together in communities and maintain their own habits and way of life. I am not criticising their habits and way of life.


I am merely saying that they are completely different, and it is this very question of difference which produces a social tension. If we do not do something designed at least to slow down the rate of inflow of immigrants, we shall find, springing up in the areas most affected a growing tension which I think may lead to very unpleasant disturbances—

Mr. Denis Howell: rose—

Mr. Hall: I will give way to the hon. Member in a moment. This has nothing to do with the country of origin. It would apply to any group of immigrants if they came in too quickly and in too large numbers. Now I will give way to the hon. Member.

Mr. Howell: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I think that he has raised a substantial point. Because immigrants tend to congregate in certain areas social frictions and problems arise. Will he tell the Committee of a single passage in this Bill which will alter that situation? Indeed, is it not a fact that if we have a system of permits to go to work all the immigrants will be directed to the places where there are jobs, and in the places where there are jobs the social and housing problem will be worse? This Bill will do nothing about that problem.

Mr. Hall: I see the strength of the point which the hon. Member has made. It seems to me that under the provisions of the Bill it would be possible to do something which perhaps the hon. Member for Salford, West had in mind when he produced suggestions for the solution of this problem some time ago. It might be possible through the issue of labour vouchers to direct some of the immigrants to other parts of the country so that their numbers could be spread more thinly. The real problem arises because they concentrate in certain areas far too quickly.
One of the anciliary problems which arises and which is serious from the point of view of this country is the increase in disease. That is not necessarily because immigrants bring disease with them. It is because they live under conditions which encourage its growth. I will mention one instance. In my own

constituency the recent figures for V.D., for example, have doubled over the last two years. That is not because the immigrants come with V.D. but because of the large number who come without their families and are driven into associations with the less desirable kind of prostitute in this country and get V.D. The terrible consequences of that could be very serious for the community in which they are living. To overcome this evil we ought to allow in their wives and families so that they may live normal family lives. Then that kind of evil might be stamped out.

Mr. Diamond: Can the hon. Gentleman give the figures for the increase of V.D. for the whole of the country over the last few years?

Mr. Hall: I cannot. I have seen only the figures for my constituency where this problem has arisen.
If we are to encourage and allow wives and families to enter this country it will add considerably to the number of people coming in. In my own constituency there are about 600 or 700 Pakistanis. The majority are here with out their families. I know of only two Pakistani families. If we are to encourage them to live as responsible citizens, to settle down and become part of the community, they must be allowed to bring their families to this country and, therefore, the number of Pakistanis in the area will double—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I shall be grateful if the hon. Member does not continue to argue along those lines, as, perhaps he is aware, there is a later Amendment which deals with immigrants from Pakistan.

Mr. Hall: I apologise if I have transgressed the rules of order. I think that I have made the point which I was trying to make. That is one of the problems which arises through the artificial conditions in which immigrants have to live.

Dr. Barnett Stross: I agree with what the hon. Member is saying, and I intervene only to ask whether he is aware that what he has said about venerial disease is true of tuberculosis? In the main, these people come in free from T.B. but contract it when they are here because of overcrowding and longer hours of work.

Mr. Hall: I accept that entirely. The hon. Gentleman is quite right. It makes it all the more essential that we should allow an inflow of immigrants at a rate which will permit us to deal with the housing problems and the problems regarding education which arise for those with families, and at a rate which does not create tension through different habits of life and thought between the existing community and the immigrants, and make it possible for us to welcome these people as useful members of the community. But if we allow the present flow to go on unchecked, I am afraid that there cannot be other than problems and tensions, and even the kind of racial riots which we all deplore and hate to see. I welcome the Bill if for no other reason than that it safeguards the immigrants already here and will enable us as a country to absorb and give hospitality and a real welcome to those who want to settle among us.

Mr. Llywelyn Williams: In resisting the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, the Home Secretary pointedly suggested that it and similar Amendments were really wrecking Amendments. I join issue strongly with him on that point. I interpret the Amendment, moved so admirably by my right hon. Friend, in terms of a salvage operation; an attempt to salvage something from the shambles and the wreck, which I am sure is a right description of this Bill; an attempt to preserve something which is good and decent and in accord with the highest and best spirit of this country.
I genuinely regret having to say this, because, like everyone else interested in Parliamentary government in this country I have regarded the Home Secretary as one who has deservedly enjoyed a very high prestige over many years. If I may use a colloquialism, the right hon. Gentleman is regarded as a Parliamentary heavyweight champion. Today, we read quite a lot about heavyweight boxers and what happens to them. I speak with sincerity when I say that to me it is almost sad to see the Home Secretary appearing before us here like a punch drunk ex-heavyweight champion boxer—not knowing what to hit, but blindly lurching out in various directions in the faint hope of hitting something.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying that, but I say it because I feel it, and this feeling is shared by other people. It was the saddest speech that I have ever heard the right hon. Gentleman make. It could be delivered only by an hon. Member of this House who, honestly and genuinely, could not believe in what he was saying.
For what it is worth, I declare that the Home Secretary, from the beginning, has never convinced me that his heart is in the Bill. I know very well that we are all circumscribed procedurally and by party affiliations, but if, one day, he is able to speak openly and frankly about the Bill, I hope that he will disavow it as something with which he once was unfortunately connected.
7.30 p.m.
I want to concentrate particularly, as the Amendment does, on the Colonies and on the West Indies. As did my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. C. Royle), who made such a moving speech, I have visited the West Indies. As has been said by other hon. Members, and as was said so touchingly by Sir Grantley Adams on television last night, the West Indians regard themselves instinctively as British people. They regard this country as their own country. Although they may have been brought up in the West Indies, which is a Colony of the United Kingdom, nevertheless, in their general attitude and feeling they regard themselves as British people. This Bill, which this Amendment is trying to correct, is for the West Indies a slap in the face.
I ask the Home Secretary to remember a fact which was quoted some months ago by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson), who, at one time, was Secretary of State for Air in a Labour Government. He informed the House that 8,000 Jamaicans served in the Royal Air Force in the last war. There was no control of this kind exercised over them. We were glad to accept every Jamaican in our Air Force, our Army or Navy. We are certainly glad to accept them and utilise their friendliness and warmth of disposition in our hospital service and transport services.
What sort of hospital service would we have were it not for the West Indians? We hear much about industrial strife. I say heaven help the Government if the West Indians, for just one day, were to withhold their services from the transport service and the hospital service. I believe that this problem could never have arisen, and need never have arisen, if the Government had followed out in spirit and action the Distribution of Industry Act, which was passed by a Labour Government. That would have been the obvious solution to immigration from the West Indies and by other peoples from our Colonies.
The great indictment of the Government is that, even with that Act on the Statute Book, giving them all the necessary powers to diffuse our industry and distribute our population more evenly and sensibly, instead of having these absurd concentrations in two or three connurbations in the Midlands and London, the coming to this country of people from our Colonies has aggravated this situation.

Mr. John Hall: I am listening to the hon. Member with great interest, but it is true, is it not, that there are a number of industrial areas where unemployment figures are very low and there are a large number of vacancies, yet where there are practically no West Indians, or none? The fact is that a nucleus in a particular area tends to attract others. That has nothing to do with the distribution of industry as such.

Mr. LI. Williams: I do not accept the hon. Member's argument.
I do not feel that the Home Secretary addressed himself as he should have done to the main argument which my right hon. Friend used when he was moving the Amendment. My right hon. Friend said that the nub of this matter is economic and that where we have a fluctuating number of vacancies we also have a corresponding fluctuation in immigration to this country.
I speak, I hope, with some imaginative feeling on this subject. I wish to offer to the Committee an analogy. I know that it is not perfect, for all analogies break down at some stage. I am a Welshman. My little nation, whose population is roughly 2½ million, has

seen conditions very analogous to the poverty and destitution now existing in Jamaica. Between 1921 and 1938, from the South Wales Valleys 400,000 to 500,000 Welsh people migrated to England. There were some very unfortunate consequences of that mass migration. The same mistake was made then as is being made now with immigration from the Colonies.
The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) referred to the concentration of immigrants in certain areas. That is exactly what happened with the Welsh immigration before the war when, for instance, 10,000 Welsh people settled in Slough. I am, naturally, proud of being Welsh, but I think that it is asking too much of the residents of Slough to dump 10,000 Welsh people on them. The same happened in Luton and other centres. My argument is that if we had planned our policy of immigration from the Colonies with more understanding, then the vexatious issues and problems which have arisen in some of our cities would not have arisen.
To prove that fundamentally this is an economic issue, I shall describe the situation as it obtains today in Wales. There is no migration from Wales to England today. No Welshman in his senses wants to come to live in England. Fortunately, we have in South Wales today a fairly prosperous economic industrial situation.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: If Welshmen did return to England, would it not be by way of reoccupation rather than migration?

Mr. LI. Williams: I think that there is a lot of truth in what my hon. and learned Friend says.
The point I am trying to make is a basically simple one, and, I think, is basically crucial to this Amendment. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said that the fears expressed by the Home Secretary and other hon. Members on Second Reading—fears about what might happen if unemployment reappeared in this country—are without foundation. They are imagined fears. I say this even about a Conservative Government. I am certain that even they will never allow a condition of mass unemployment to recur in Britain.


These fears are imagined unless, as one hon. Friend is now prompting me to say, the Government are bluffing. The genesis of the Bill has been referred to so often by my hon. Friends. It is a succumbing to a culmination of pressure from back benchers opposite and from the Conservative Party Conference. It is abject and cowardly that a Government who have proclaimed so often their belief in the Colonies and in the Commonwealth should have allowed this type of pressure to influence their judgment. In some cases this is against the better judgment of some members of the Cabinet, and I refer particularly to the Home Secretary.
I wholeheartedly support the Amendment, because we owe more to the Colonies than we have given them. I do not deny that in many instances our colonial history has its bright and brilliant chapters of selflessness. Our colonial history is nothing to be ashamed of; I have never thought or said that it is. I have been in places where it is difficult to say these things, but even in America I have been as eloquent and warm as anyone in paying tribute to our colonial history. The Bill is putting the clock back. In that sense it is abject that, in 1961, the Government should have taken this attitude because of the pressures to which I have referred.

Mr. Fisher: I agree very much with the closing remarks of the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. LI. Williams). We have ranged so widely from Birmingham to Wales and other places that I must apologise to the Committee for returning directly to the Amendment. I am sympathetic to it, for two reasons. I do not want to labour the point which was eloquently made by the Leader of the Opposition, but I think that he was absolutely right in saying that there is a rather important difference between imposing a Bill such as this upon a colonial dependency for which we are still responsible and applying it to an equal and independent Commonwealth country. This is the first strong argument in favour of the Amendment.
My second reason is this, that on Second Reading I made the point, in defence of the Government's position in relation to the Bill, that what my right hon. Friends are worried about is not

so much the actual numbers coming in from the West Indies but the potential numbers who might come in from the Asian countries of the Commonwealth—who could come here and have a perfect right to come as things are at the moment. With no restraints at all, citizens of India and Pakistan could come here literally in their millions. I do not say that they would, but they could. If they did, they could not possibly be absorbed, either from the point of view of housing or of employment, into the economy of this small island.
On the other hand, in the context of the Amendment the position of the Colonies is quite different and much less serious in the numerical sense. The total population of the West Indies is rather over 3 million. In a normal year probably not more than 30,000 people would want to come here from the Caribbean. I stress the word "normal" because this year has not been a normal year and to a somewhat lesser extent last year was not a normal year either, for the same reason. People who might have come next year or the year after have rushed to come this year. In Jamaica this movement is known as "Operation Christmas", because they are rushing to come here before the Bill becomes law, because they will not after that be able to come here.
If the citizens of the Colonies are exempted from the provisions of the Bill, which is what the Amendment seeks to do, we shall reduce the migrant intake to a manageable and ascertain-able size. It is not then a vast problem. It is not the same as the many millions of people who could come from the Asian countries of the Commonwealth. It is a much smaller problem.
7.45 p.m.
I want to be quite fair and, if possible, unbiased. There are two valid arguments which can be advanced against the Amendment. The first is that for the time being it is a wrecking Amendment. I do not say this in any derogatory sense. It is a wrecking Amendment in the sense that it deliberately excludes from the Bill the largest single category of migrants, namely the West Indians. As I am devoted to the West Indies, I am in favour of that. I join with all those hon. Members, particularly hon. Members opposite, who have paid very generous


and absolutely accurate tributes to the West Indians for what they have done to help our economy.
But the fact remains that if we start excluding any category from a Bill such as this we shall be in trouble. This is one of the difficulties now facing my right hon. Friends, because they have had to admit that in practice they must exclude the Irish. This is a very real embarrassment for the Government. It is the real difficulty. Later Amendments on the Notice Paper seek to exclude every Commonwealth country. In that context this can be described as a wrecking Amendment, because it drives a coach and four through the Bill.
The second argument against the Amendment—it is, in a way, a contradictory argument—is that if it is intended to help the West Indies it will probably turn out to be of rather marginal and ephemeral assistance to them, because the majority of the migrants come from Jamaica. Jamaica will be independent in May next year. It is still open to doubt whether Trinidad will lead a smaller federation of the Eastern Caribbean. If she decides to do so, there is no doubt that that Federation would very soon become independent. If Trinidad does not decide to take up that position, she in her turn, if she wants to go it alone like Jamaica, will become independent in a short time. Therefore, most of these territories will be independent within the next year. In practice, by the time the Bill becomes law, all that we have been discussing this afternoon will be almost irrelevant. We have all been talking about the West Indies and we are all sympathetic to their position, but by the time the Bill is in serious operation most of the West Indian migrants who might be affected will be excluded by the main body of the Bill, whether the Amendment is carried or not.
So I do not think that there is very much in the Amendment in practice—at any rate for the West Indies. However, in so far as it would be helpful to the West Indies, even temporarily and even in a small way, I am not disposed to vote against it.
I now want to deal shortly with the Irish problem. This has nothing whatever to do with the Amendment, but,

Sir Gordon, we have been allowed by one of your predecessors to discuss it.

The Chairman: Certainly, provided that the hon. Member does not go too far. There is another Amendment which deals with this question.

Mr. Fisher: I should not dream of going too far, Sir Gordon.
Having listened to my right hon. Friend's announcement about the Southern Irish position, I cannot pretend that I feel any happier about it now than I did on Second Reading. The plain fact is that unless the Southern Irish, who are not even citizens of the Commonwealth are effectively—and I want to underline that word "effectively"—included in the Bill, it really does become a colour Bill; its whole impact will fall on the coloured nations and coloured citizens of the Commonwealth.
That is all there is to it. I know that it is not the Government's intention to make this a colour Bill—of course it is not—but that is what it will seem like and, quite honestly, what it does seem like to every coloured citizen in our multi-racial Commonwealth. That being so, I cannot avoid the feeling that it is bound to harm race relationships in the world and Commonwealth relations towards this country.
People who think that it will not are really thinking of the Commonwealth as it was when it was the Empire. I am afraid that they are thinking of it in terms of the older white Dominions, but they are probably fifty years out of date. The Commonwealth is not like that today. None of the older white Dominions is likely to be affected by this Measure. Their citizens who come to Britain are either tourist visitors, students, returning British migrants, perhaps disappointed in their careers overseas, or are self-supporting, or are skilled men, or men who come to prearranged jobs.
From the practical point of view, very few people come from Australia or Canada as unskilled manual workers with no job arranged or in prospect—

Captain Walter Elliot: I have particular experience of people coming from Australia. It is true to say that tens of thousands of young Australians come here, do a job for a


short time, travel to the Continent, come back here and do another job, and so on, staying for about a year or 18 months.

Mr. Fisher: I should be very surprised to find that my hon. and gallant Friend's figure of tens of thousands was correct. When, in a few months time, hon. Members put down Questions to my right hon. Friends, as I have no doubt they will, asking how many Commonwealth citizens have been excluded by this Bill; how many from Australia, how many from Canada, how many from the West Indies, India, Pakistan, and so on—

The Chairman: That does not arise on this Amendment.

Mr. Fisher: It does not arise on this Amendment, no, Sir Gordon, but it is difficult, when one is interrupted, not to be permitted to give a short answer. I think that when all the answers are forthcoming it will be found that the vast majority of those excluded by this Bill have been our coloured Commonwealth citizens.
The fact is that almost the only unskilled white labour entering the country is to be found among the Southern Irish. I do not want my feelings about them to be mistaken. I like the Southern Irish, and I know Southern Ireland very well. I know that, like the West Indians, the Southern Irish are making an extremely useful contribution to our economy, but if they are not included the Commonwealth will say, and believe, that we are legislating against colour—and in practice, though not in intention, I am afraid that will be true.
I had hoped very much that some way would be found to distinguish in this Bill between citizens of Northern Ireland and those of Southern Ireland. I knew that it would be very difficult; I said so in the Second Reading debate, and I have said so in many speeches inside the House and outside it for years.
We have seen circulated in the Press the suggestion that the Northern Ireland National Insurance cards might possibly provide a solution; that people from Southern Ireland who did not possess such cards would not find employment here. I gather that that and similar proposals have had to be rejected on administrative grounds. The position

now is that we shall have an interval of, I gather, two years in which to get information about the Southern Irish, presumably to see how many of them come seasonally, how many stop here permanently, whether they live in camps or require permanent housing—I suppose that is the kind of investigation we shall have—

Mr. Raymond Gower: rose—

Mr. Fisher: I just want to finish this point, which is the purpose of the argument.
Why is it thought likely that in 1963 we shall suddenly be able to find a solution of the Southern Irish problem that we cannot find today? I simply cannot believe that my right hon. Friend's statement this afternoon about the Southern Irish was a really valid one. To me, it seems to be just another attempt, perhaps, to help those like me who are in a very difficult position, but it is not a successful attempt, because if we cannot get a solution today, after all the thought and the very sincere efforts that my right hon. Friend has devoted to the matter, why should we be better able to get it in two years' time?
I am afraid, therefore, that we are in the very difficult position, if we cannot find a solution—and I do not honestly think it very likely that we shall—that this Measure remains a colour Bill. This is the main difficulty for me, and probably for some others of my hon. Friends. It is a most unhappy position, but as long as the Irish are excluded in practice just so long will this remain a colour Bill. That makes it quite impossible for me to give my right hon. Friend and the Government the loyal support I should genuinely like to give them on any major Government Bill.
Some of us on this side of the Committee, who feel deeply about the Commonwealth and strongly about things like this, are being put in a terribly difficult position when our loyalty is requested, when we are anxious to give it, but when the situation is such that we cannot give it without betraying very sincere convictions held over a very long period of time. That, in the final analysis, I cannot do.

Mr. Ede: Part of this road I have travelled before, as the right


hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was careful to remind me on Second Reading. I did not take part in that debate, because I know the difficulty that confronts him. He quoted what I said on 13th July, 1948, when, dealing with the Irish in relation to problems of this kind, I said:
8.0 p.m.
It is true that this may present anomalies, but in my experience of attempting to deal with the Irish, whether Southern" or Northern, if one can do anything at all it is sure to be either by way of creating an anomaly or of recognising one."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th July, 1948; Vol. 453, c. 1112.]
Having studied the problem during the intervening thirteen years I am more than ever convinced that the experience of the right hon. Gentleman in connection with this Bill confirms the view that that is the inevitable conclusion to which English politicians will be driven in any attempt they make to control the Irish. We have been trying it for 700 years. Some of our ablest statesmen and some of our best generals have been employed in that task; the Irish have beaten us every time, and they will continue to beat us.
We can only deal with this problem by becoming out and out Fascists. Hitler was determined to control the Jews. He was troubled by no scruples about inflicting indignity on fellow human beings so he said, "Every Jew shall wear a yellow badge." No English politician, let alone statesman, will ever be able to say, "In order that I may identify the Irish, every Irishman who comes from Northern Ireland shall wear an orange badge, and every Irishman who comes from Southern Ireland shall wear a green badge." We would not inflict on any minority such a social indignity. It is because we do not have the hardness of heart to do that that, in this matter, the Irish will beat us every time.
What exactly is the basis of this and similar Measures? It is to deal with easily recognisable minorities. This Bill becomes a colour Bill because we do not have the pluck, the hardness of heart, or the wickedness to inflict the social indignity of having to wear a badge on people whom the Government would like to exclude. One can see the colour of a man's face. I have even seen in

police reports on occasions—and I objected strongly to it whenever I saw this—the reference to a man having an "Hebraic countenance"—which meant that one would probably try to designate him a Jew because of his facial formation. The easily recognisable minorities are, of course, far easier to deal with than other people who, villains though they may be are so apt to look like the most respectable and peaceable of citizens.
That is the problem which confronts the Government in dealing with this matter. I give credit to the Home Secretary—who has had a rather rough time this afternoon—for not succumbing to the demands of some people that the Irish should be excluded. I do not want to exclude anyone. I am not an economist, but while I have seen Germany beaten in two world wars I now see that country among the most prosperous nations on earth. How do they do it? I ask this question of my economist friends, of whom there is a large number among my hon. Friends, although they regard me as an outcast because I am never able to take part in their discussions. Not that they discuss matters, for they are as pontifical as any Pope who rules in Rome. When I ask how the Germans do it they reply, "Look at the great influx of labour Germany has had with the refugees."
This is the answer I get and as I travel about Britain, especially on public transport in London and in the provincial cities, I soon realise that our public transport, faced with the most tremendous difficulties, is today only kept running because these people have come in. They have picked up the local knowledge, although, I admit, the majority of them would rather one supplied the name of the "pub" than the name of the church at which one wished to alight. Perhaps that is because it is easier to read the name on the "pub" than to read the small type on a church notice board. The way they acquire this knowledge on where one should change, especially on London's underground, is remarkable. This particularly applies to a journey where one must make two or more changes and it is an indication that any attempt to write them off as being inferior or unintellectual is founded on a misconception.
I have given up trying to determine whether an Irishman living in the Scotland Division of Liverpool regards Ireland or England as his home country. A Scotsman will even sometimes allow that he is British, but if one calls a Northern or Southern Irishman British he will at once say that he is Irish.

Captain L. P. S. Orr: I simply cannot allow that to pass. A Northern Irishman is very proud of being called British.

Mr. Ede: I had some responsibility for Northern Ireland. One job that nearly broke my heart was trying to work with the Government of Northern Ireland. It is far easier to work with the South.

The Chairman: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Amendment deals with the question of the Colonies?

Mr. Ede: I apologise, Sir Gordon, for I should have ignored the remark of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr). I merely wished to treat the hon. Gentleman with appropriate respect.
This afternoon we had what I regard as a valuable speech from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall), who faced up frankly to the problems involved. I was responsible for introducing the wonderful phrase "Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies" into the law of this country. It was done deliberately to associate us most particularly with people living in foreign climes for whom we in this House accept the responsibilities of government.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) used at one time to ask, "Is Labour fit to govern?" Whenever I was asked that question at an election meeting, I always replied, "No. No one man is fit to govern another, but it becomes necessary on occasions that the job should be undertaken"—and I always thought that I was as capable of doing it as anyone else.
As I say, this was a deliberate act on the part of the Labour Government and I carefully explained this on the Second Reading, in Committee and on the Third Reading of the 1948 Act, because we always felt a special responsibility for people we must govern because the

development in their territories had not advanced them to a stage when they could undertake the task themselves. I rejoice that, steadily, we are now being able to pass on that responsibility to them. Therefore, it will be a diminishing number. But, while we retain responsibility, if we call them citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, we must remember the tie which we ourselves on this side of the Committee have created.
I know that the phrase was not popular on the benches opposite. The Bill, by a misfortune, was introduced in another place. In another place everything which we had put in was struck out, and another nomenclature was put in. This nomenclature we reversed during the Committee stage of the Bill in the House of Commons. We went right through it and struck out everything which had been put in in another place and restored the Bill as we had introduced it.
We have a very heavy responsibility particularly for the people of the West Indies. I had the great honour of being appointed, with the right hon. Gentleman, as he then was, Sir Thomas Dug-dale, now Lord Crathorne, and the hon. Member for Tavistock (Sir H. Studholme), to go to the West Indies to present a Mace from this House to the House of Representatives there. We had the great honour of being entertained by Sir Grantley Adams. There is no truer friend of British ideals in the world than Sir Grantley Adams. No denunciation can be too strong for the way in which this Government have treated him in the promotion of the Bill.
I had the great honour to have a private lunch given to me by a member of the Government of Trinidad, the Hon. Leary Constantine. Anyone with a greater friendship for the enlightened members of this community than Leary Constantine I should very much like to meet. As Minister of Transport in the Government of Trinidad he has been showing how he managed to assimilate in this country, as well as in the West Indies, the British way of life and, more particularly, the English way of life.

Mr. S. Silverman: The Lancashire way of life.

Mr. Ede: I give my hon. Friend his point. Mr. Constantine felt greatly


honoured because he had been represented in Parliament by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman).
These people have an affinity with us which is very striking, although one has to allow for the different climate in the way in which some parts of their lives are lived. For myself, if I had to choose a place in which to live, I should still prefer England, because I have not the kind of blood in my veins which likes living for fourteen successive days in a temperature of 95 degrees.
We have a very heavy debt to repay these people. The hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) accused them of promiscuity. Their ancestors had a tribal life in Africa with its own standards, not quite the same as ours, which we disrupted in a disgraceful way. The other night, in preparation for this debate, I read in the Dictionary of National Biography the biography of John Hawkins, the man who founded the slave trade, and who, in promotion of that trade at the time, was actually given a vessel by the first Queen Elizabeth, a vessel which, in view of the use to which it was put, was I think, almost blasphemously called "Jesus".
Her Majesty took some of the profits, but made no contribution towards the expenses of the voyages. These people were taken from Africa where they had a tribal organisation which they had built up as a result of experience. They were transported to America, largely to the West Indies, and they were the originators of the present inhabitants of the West Indies.
8.15 p.m.
They lived for about two-and-a-half centuries in a state of slavery. I read in a book provided for me by the Governor-General of the West Indies, whom we used to know better in the House as Mr. Buchan-Hepburn, a description of the way in which this primitive organisation had managed to survive during the years of slavery and how, when liberation came, many of the practices which inherited from their African ancestors still remained in the rather newer state of society into which they moved.
It is an astonishing thing that there is no legitimacy or illegitimacy in the West Indies. It just does not exist. A man and a woman living together are recognised as such by the community. I do not want to say anything which might upset the Scots, but I have understood that, in earlier days, Scottish marriages were not very different from that. If the family breaks up, the girls are looked after by the grandparents on the mother's side and the boys by the grandparents on the father's side.
I am not defending that sort of life, but neither am I attacking it. These people have had to adapt themselves, as a result of our misdeeds to their ancestors, in order to build up a new civilisation which can help them in the world today. To suggest that we can now treat them as if we had no responsibility for them, and as if, in the words of the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South, they had now got to work out their own destiny, is to suggest something exhibiting a lack of responsibility for our imperial debts as well as for our imperial honour which will never, I hope, be supported by the Committee.
We are, by this Bill, opening a new chapter in British history. I recall that I got into great trouble in the House when, as Home Secretary, I was once asked whether I would take powers to enable me to deport Canadian subjects who were giving us some trouble during a shipping strike at the docks in the East End of London. I said that I wished I could have powers to deport Canadian citizens because I should then deal with the proprietor of the Daily Express. Hon. Members on what was then the Opposition Front Bench said that it was very wrong to say a thing like that about a Member of the other place. Let me say this for Lord Beaverbrook. He wrote and said, "If you ever want me to go out, send me a note and I will go quietly". I hope that I have as good a sense of humour as Lord Beaverbrook.
We are being asked to take an important decision in this Amendment. I regret that it was not included in the Bill by the Government. I believe that, if the Amendment is defeated, we make a completely new start in our relationship with the coloured peoples of the Commonwealth. I believe that it is a bad new connection to make, and I for one hope


that, if not tonight, at least before the Bill reaches the Statute Book, we shall continue to extend to the Colonies which we govern, and for whose economic and political future we are responsible, the wish that they should be one with us and and that all the advantages which we enjoy should be shared among all of them.

Sir Richard Pilkington: I listened, as did every other hon. Member, with great interest and respect to the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). I think it probable that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will take some comfort from the fact that the right hon. Gentleman supported the Home Secretary's decision concerning the Irish. Two distinguished occupiers of the office of Home Secretary have apparently come to the same conclusion.
The hon. Members for Salford, West (Mr. C. Royle) and Abertillery (Mr. LI. Williams) both hazarded the opinion that what had brought the Bill about was back bench pressure and not the decision of the Government themselves. I wonder whether hon. Members opposite have heard of a newspaper called the Daily Herald? If so, and if they read it, they will have seen that earlier this week it referred to the letters which the editor had received about the Bill. They may remember that the article dealing with the problem that we are considering stated that, out of the 57 letters which the editor had received, only six supported the line which the Opposition are taking. I therefore think that it can be said that it is not only Conservative back bench pressure that has brought the Bill into being.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) and another hon. Member opposite went into the history of the West Indies and called attention to the fact that our ancestors were largely responsible for bringing Africans from Africa and putting them in the West Indies. The right hon. Member for South Shields referred to what he called the tribal life that they were living before that. Perhaps he should have mentioned that the tribal life that they were living knew slavery very well indeed. He might also have said that, although we did a great deal of the carrying of slaves across the Atlantic, it

was this country which led the way to the abolition of the slave trade and, later, of slavery itself. It is as well that we should get the picture rounded.
I have every sympathy, if I may say so respectfully, with those who really believe that this is a bad Bill. I attach full importance to the strength of the arguments that we have heard on this Amendment. However, it seems to me that the arguments against the Amendment, not by a long way, but by some way, override the arguments for it.
I put my belief on three main grounds. If the Amendment and all that goes with it were accepted, this growing nucleus of immigrants would grow at a faster rate than do the people now living in this country, because, as has been said by several hon. Members, their birth rate is that much higher. After all, we are supposed to legislate not only for the present, but for the future. It seems undeniable that this country would then suffer the same sort of problems which are confronting the United States and which they have found insoluble. I think that that is the overriding consideration in all the other important considerations which concern the Bill.

Mr. Chapman: Which problem does the United States find insoluble?

Sir Richard Pilkington: The hon. Gentleman may have heard the name Little Rock. In America, Little Rock is not an end but a beginning. I am anxious to avoid the same sort of thing happening in this country.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Does the hon. Gentleman regard this as a colour Bill?

Sir Richard Pilkington: I believe that I am right in saying that I have no feeling one way or the other personally about the colour question. It is an inescapable fact that where too many people of a country and too many immigrants are too close together—this applies to other countries where the experience has been the same—then the sort of friction to which I have referred arises.

Mr. Hale: Is not that the situation in Kenya today?

Mr. S. Silverman: The hon. Gentleman said that, if this Amendment were


accepted, we would be in danger of creating in this country the same insoluble problem which exists in the United States.

Mr. Hale: And which exists in Kenya.

Mr. Silverman: Whether the problem is insoluble or not, the problem to which the hon. Gentleman refers is a colour problem and only a colour problem. Therefore, if he says that to accept this Amendment would be to create a colour problem in this country, then to reject it would be to avoid the colour problem in this country. The hon. Gentleman has given the Government's case away. He has demonstrated that this is a colour Bill and nothing else.

Sir Richard Pilkington: If the hon. Gentleman had listened with his customary attention he would have remembered that I referred in every case to "immigrants". I did not bring the question of colour into it because I do not think that that is necessary. We are an overcrowded island already. We are dealing with immigrants, whatever their colour. It is only a matter of administration that we cannot bring the Irish in at the same time.

Mr. Hale: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how he would propose that the new Kenya Government should deal with European immigrants in Kenya?

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. John Arbuthnot): The hon. Member for Old-ham, West (Mr. Hale) is not in order on this Amendment in asking the hon. Gentleman how the Kenya Government would deal with the matter.

Mr. Hale: I am trying to deal with the people in Kenya and to relate my intervention to the hon. Gentleman's observations about Little Rock. If Little Rock is not in the Bill, Nairobi is not in the Bill. With great respect, I should be grateful to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if you would tell me why it is permissible for the hon. Member for Poole (Sir Richard Pilkington) to develop a detailed argument about a place in the United States but not permissible for me to develop an argument about a place which is, to an extent, still under British rule.

Mr. John Dugdale: Further to that point of order—

The Temporary Chairman: It was not a point of order.

Mr. Hale: I did raise a point of order, Mr. Arbuthnot. It has had no reply. I ventured to challenge your Ruling, with great respect, and to say that, whilst respecting the Chair, I humbly asked for guidance as to why an observation about the colour bar in Kenya was not relevant when an observation about Little Rock was.

The Temporary Chairman: That is not a question for me to answer.

Mr. Hale: With great respect, Mr. Arbuthnot, this was the intervention you made to me. You directed me virtually to resume my seat on the ground that I was out of order in referring to Nairobi. I am asking why you say that I was out of order.

The Temporary Chairman: Order.

Mr. Hale: No, I will not give way in these circumstances. You have ruled, Mr. Arbuthnot, that you are not responsible for your own Ruling and I venture to ask you why.

The Temporary Chairman: When I am on my feet, the hon. Member must resume his seat. I have told him that we could not discuss on this Amendment a matter which was the responsibility of the Kenya Government.

Mr. Gordon Walker: rose—

Mr. Hale: Further to that, this is not a matter of responsibility for the Kenya Government. It is still a matter for the United Kingdom Government. I was intervening to make a point in which I was suggesting that the hon. Member who had the ear of the Committee was a little wide of the point in referring in complete detail to Little Rock, which is a purely colour bar question in a limited area, in a depressed and rather poverty-stricken area of the United States.
I asked the hon. Member to explain to me, in view of our responsibility for the present negotiations in Nairobi, in view of the fact that the Government of Kenya is under discussion, in view of the fact that the Colonial Secretary is


at the moment discussing with Mr. Jomo Kenyatta and others the future of Kenya, which will involve the security and the safety of European citizens, including United Kingdom citizens, who have not abandoned their nationality, why this, was not a matter to consider in the light of the argument that the hon. Member was putting.

8.30 p.m.

The Temporary Chairman: I cannot see that chat arises on this Amendment.

Mr. Gordon Walker: The Amendment deals with citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. Inhabitants of Kenya are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. Therefore, is it not directly relevant to the Amendment?

The Temporary Chairman: Sir Richard Pilkington.

Sir Richard Pilkington: The second speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) was not as good as his first speech earlier in the day. Density of population is the answer which I could give him in three words, but which I must not give him more fully, because, Mr. Arbuthnot, you have ruled it out of order.
I have tried to make the points which I regard as of overbearing importance in this difficult problem, but there is one further thing to which, possibly, hon. Members opposite who speak after me may care to refer. What is the limit which hon. Members opposite who are in favour of the Amendment consider would be the proper limit of immigration into this country? Is there no limit that they would put? If there is a limit, at what level would they put it? Surely, it is right at this stage to get the machinery in the hands of the Government so that if later it becomes necessary to control one way or the other the number of people coming into the country, it can be done.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: The speech which the Committee has just heard from the hon. Member for Poole (Sir Richard Pilkington) seems to me to be an abject confession of failure. The hon. Member has compared the potential situation which existing immigration has created with the Little Rock situation. In my submission, the Bill is a condemnation of the Government because they, too.
have taken a wholly defeatist attitude to the problem of how to organise a multiracial society.
There was an occasion not long ago when the Minister of State referred to the United Kingdom as "the focal point of a multi-racial Commonwealth." Can he say that now, after the Bill, when the Government are saying that even though we have not got a population of 500,000 immigrants, it would create too grave a problem, it would create dangers of racial disorders and we could not risk it?
Is that the example that Britain is setting to those territories where, according to spokesmen of the Government, we are advocating multi-racial societies and communities? Is this the message of Britain, that multi-racialism is all very well across the oceans but not here, and that we cannot cope with it here, with all our resources, our wealth, our traditions, our tolerance and our neighbourliness? Is that the verdict that the human race is to pass upon Britain, that we cannot absorb in this community 1 per cent, of the population which has a different colour from ours? What a message for a party of Commonwealth and Empire.
I have had occasion several times this year to be in Africa and I have been in some of the Colonies. I remember one evening in a remote farm in Kenya early this year some of our people there, European settlers, saying "For God's sake, what are you doing about the Government's plans on immigration? What do you think our fate here in Kenya will be? Here we are in a lonely outpost, in lonely farms, where we have survived the challenge of Mau Mau. There is a new challenge now coming to our position from England, from the Tory Party or part of it, in Britain." I suppose that the British white population of Kenya is about 24,000. It may be more, though not much more.

Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: Is it not about 100,000?

Mr. Elwyn Jones: Whatever it is, it is a very small proportion of the total population, and I stand to be corrected on the figure. We happen, however, to own a great deal of wealth there. We have invested a great deal there, and it


is perfectly true that we have made a great contribution.

The Temporary Chairman: I think that the hon. and learned Member is going into too much detail and is a little wide of the Amendment.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: With great respect, Mr. Arbuthnot, surely on this Amendment it is legitimate for the Committee to consider what the reactions of the Colonies will be to the Bill if it is not amended. We have a practical responsibility for the Colonies. We still have responsibility for their government, and I submit that this is a highly relevant and a most material part of the argument which the Government have to face.
To return to the situation in Kenya, the small white population there has been subject to serious challenge and threat, but it has survived, and now there is a prospect in Kenya of multi-racialism developing. There are better relations between the farmers and their neighbours. Africans are moving in as neighbours to the white farms. I have seen it happen. I am sure the Colonial Secretary is eager to surmount these difficulties. This is the root of survival in these territories, but what an example the Bill will be to the Kenya Government. It will be a direct provocation to the racialists there who will say to the whites, "Get out. We do not want you." This is the kind of thing that will happen if this sort of Measure goes through.
I see that the Attorney-General is present and I wonder what he as a lawyer feels about the Bill. It does violence to a tradition of the common law which has existed for over 350 years. We on this side of the Committee have always thought that the Tory Party was reactionary, but the party has not in recent years gone back to the 15th century for its precedents as it is doing in this Bill. Ever since the great judgment of Lord Chief Justice Ellesmere in Calvin's case in 1608 it has been the rule of our law that all have enjoyed the same rights to the King's protection.
Our law does not know and never has known any distinction between British subjects in respect of race or colour. It

is a great and noble tradition. It is the tradition that led Lord Chief Justice Mansfield to make his famous decision which led to the ending of the slave trade. I was in Sierra Leone this year. It is a somewhat rare experience for a lawyer to go to a country where a former Lord Chief Justice is a national hero. It is not one of the normal attributes of the holders of that high office, if I may say so. Lord Chief Justice Mansfield was applying the famous principle declared by Lord Chief Justice Ellesmere when he said that King James I was "one entire king" over all his subjects in whichever of his dominions they were born and that they all enjoyed the same right to the King's protection.
That is not going to be said after this Bill. They will not enjoy the same Queen's protection, wherever they may be. It will no longer be possible to say of a British subject, if this Bill goes through, as they said proudly of Roman subjects—civis romanus sum. Where are the shades of Palmerston? Where is the idealism of the Tory Party, if it ever had sincerity in this? Has all this interest in Imperialism merely been a squalid interest in property overseas?
Here is the moment, of all times, when we should not be turning the pages of history backwards. Here is the moment, of all times, for us to assert once again the brotherhood of man and the rôle of the Commonwealth.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I must ask the hon. and learned Gentle man to come back to the Amendment.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: I do not wish to be impertinent to the Chair, Mr Arbuthnot, but the whole purpose of this Amendment is to try to introduce something of humanity into an inhumar and wholly illiberal Bill. As I was say ing, and I repeat it, this of all moments in the development of the Commonwealth is the worst in which to take this step. There is a great challenge of world forces with which we should be concerned at this present moment. There is a great challenge in the places we have left and in those which we are about to leave. There are others who are very ready to enter these places. This Bill will give encouragement to them. It is deplorable, it is reactionary, and


the refusal to accept an Amendment which at least would give some corner of decency to it is about the most depressing Parliamentary development for a very long time.

The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): The hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) wondered what I, as a lawyer, felt about the Bill. I hope that I shall inform him, in the course of my speech, of my views on this Amendment. But I might say first, if I might, that I think that some of his language was somewhat exaggerated. He approached the Bill as though it were a Measure to stop all immigrants from coming to the country. It is, of course, nothing of the sort.
The hon. and learned Member also sought to represent the Bill as one which alters a person's nationality. He said that we would never be able to say, as the Romans said, civis romanus sum. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has pointed out, however, the Bill makes no difference in this respect to the Act of 1948. That is to say, it does not alter the citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
This has been a wide-ranging debate and if I would not perhaps get out of order by saying so, I would say that it has appeared at some stages to be somewhat analogous to a Second Reading debate—though, of course, Mr. Arbuthnot, you would not permit a Second Reading debate on an Amendment which, although very important and far-reaching in its consequences, is an extremely narrow Amendment.
It has been a wide-ranging debate, for it has ranged from a discussion of matters appropriate for consideration by the Birmingham City Council—raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Lady-wood (Mr. V. Yates)—to consideration of vital statistics mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), in a very interesting speech. It has even ranged in its later stages from Little Rock to Nairobi.
8.45 p.m.
I do not intend to attempt to cover the whole range of the discussion. I want primarily to deal with the Amendment, because, after all, what we have to decide is whether the Amendment

should be made. I would like, first, to say that it is perfectly true that no one likes the Bill. Some of us think that it has to be enacted if it can be. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has said, it is a sad necessity, but if we are right in thinking that it is a necessary Measure at this time the Government would be failing in their duty and their responsibility if they failed to tackle the problem.
In the course of my right hon. Friend's speech, the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) asked for the figures to be split up, showing the number of immigrants from what I might call the principal Colonial Territories and those from the self-governing Commonwealth countries for which figures were available. I can give him the approximate figures of the net inward movement from both categories.
In 1958, there were 15,700 immigrants from the principal Colonial Territories and 14,600 from the self-governing Commonwealth countries; in 1959, the respective figures were 16,650 from the Colonies and 4,500 from the Commonwealth countries; in 1960, 49,000 from the principal Colonial Territories and 9,600 from the self-governing Commonwealth countries; for the first nine months in 1961, 54,250 from the principal Colonial Territories and 41,500 from the self-governing Commonwealth countries. The total has risen from just over 21,000 in 1959, to 58,600 in 1960 and 95,750 in the first nine months of 1961. We may be right or wrong, but that seems to us to indicate a marked trend towards much increasing immigration.

Mr. Diamond: Is it not fair to point out—and it is the reason why my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) asked for these figures—that the trend is wholly in the direction of immigration from the Commonwealth, which is not covered by the Amendment, and that the figures for the immigration with which the Amendment is concerned have been more or less static for the past two years?

The Attorney-General: I do not accept that for one moment. I do not think that a difference from 16,650 in 1959 to 49,000 in 1960 and 54,000 in the first nine months of 1961 can be regarded as more or less static. However, there


may be a difference of points of view. I think that the right hon. Member who asked for the figures will appreciate that we have done our best to supply them.
I was about to say that, rightly or wrongly, we believe that those figures show a trend of movement which has to be dealt with. The Committee has heard of the prolonged consideration given to this question of immigration into our country. It has gone on for many years and it is finally and reluctantly that we feel it incumbent on us not to prohibit immigration, not to prevent all people coming here, but to take power now to control immigration. After all, we are a thickly populated island.
It is one of the common arguments of an Opposition, an argument which I admit I have advanced several times in years gone by, to say of legislation introduced by Her Majesty's Government either that it is too soon or that it is too late. In this field, I believe that it is far better to be too soon in taking power to exercise control than to be too late in introducing such legislation. Once one has the power which the Bill seeks to give Her Majesty's Government, the power to exercise control, then I submit to the Committee that it is desirable that the control should be flexible and, indeed, that the House of Commons should know how the controls are being imposed and how they are being exercised.
The point I want to make, because there seems to be some misconception about it, is that the Bill as it stands applies to all Commonwealth citizens, except those who come within Clause 1 (2). It applies also to British-protected persons. They are brought in by subsection (4). They are not British subjects and so cannot come within subsection (2). By subsection (4) it is also applied to citizens of the Republic of Ireland.
I cannot agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher), to whose speech I listened with interest, when he says that unless controls are exercised in relation to the Southern Irish this would be, and was, a colour Bill. He said that no less than three times. I cannot accept that as a proper description of a Bill which applies to the

whole of the Commonwealth. I simply cannot accept that that is a correct description of the Bill.
The effect of the Amendment would be simply this, that Commonwealth citizens of the independent self-governing territories would still be liable to control, because they would still be within Part I of the Bill, but the residents in the Colonies would not. I suggest that that would create an invidious distinction, and I crave leave to doubt whether it would be welcomed by such Commonwealth Territories.
I regard the Amendment as creating illogicality. It is not logical to provide that territories on reaching independence, should lose the freedom of access which the Amendment seeks to give them. The logical scheme is the one which seeks to distinguish, for purposes only of immigration into this country, between residents here and residents elsewhere, and that is what the Clause does. It is convenient to take the passport method, because, after all, the immigration officer can then have a document readily available on which he can act.
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said that all have similar passports. That is not the case. For instance, the passport would show whether it had been issued to a Jamaican by the Government of Jamaica. It is not the case that they have the same passports. The passport is an easy method of distinguishing, and if we are to have control on immigration we must distinguish between residents and nonresidents, and that is the easy way of doing it.

Mr. S. Silverman: Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman importing a distinction which is not to be found in the Bill?

The Attorney-General: No.

Mr. Silverman: There is nothing in the Bill to distinguish between residents and non-residents. Indeed, the very first exception, in Clause 1 (2, a) concerns persons born in the United Kingdom. They do not have to continue to be resident here; it is enough that they should be born here.

The Attorney-General: I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman has


taken that point. The easy way of putting it—the colloquial way—is by drawing a line between the "belongers" and the "non-belongers", but these are words that I do not like using. The hon. Gentleman has put a narrower construction on the word "residents" than I was intending to convey. I think that "belongers" and "non-belongers" is probably better. If we try to control immigration into this country in some way, we have to make that separation.
The point was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition that we are all—both the inhabitants of the Colonies, those who have their homes there and those in the United Kingdom—citizens of the United Kingdom and. Colonies, and that is so, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) pointed out, under the Measure which he introduced in 1948. We will remain so, and that is not affected one iota by the passage of this Bill. The fact of this control will no more alter that than the fact that the majority, if not all, of the Colonial Territories have a power to control immigration from this country affects the status of persons resident in this country.
The House has accepted the principle of the Bill on Second Reading, and it is right, if we have to have it and if the principle is accepted, that we should have the power of control over the whole field of possible immigration into this country. That is all that Clause 1 seeks to secure, subject to the exceptions in subsection (2).
I will not say that the Amendment is a wrecking Amendment, for I should probably be called to order if I did, but I do say that it is certainly one that seeks to perform a major surgical operation on the Bill. It is one of a mutilating character, and I therefore ask the Committee to reject it.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I rise because the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General has risen, although I am fully aware that there are many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee who are eager to speak and who have unquestionably very important contributions yet to make to this debate, and, of course, the evening is still young.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the House had accepted the

principle of the Bill on Second Reading. Of course, that is so, but he will remember that many of his own hon. Friends gave rather conditional acceptance to this Bill. One of his hon. Friends specifically said that unless the Bill was changed in Committee in certain considerable respects he would vote against it on Third Reading, and I think that he was speaking for more than himself.
9.0 p.m.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman repeated the sophistry—if I may use that word—launched upon us by his right hon. Friend in his argument that the Amendment would create a distinction between citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies and Commonwealth citizens at large. As everybody knows, that is a consequence of the order of procedure of the House. We cannot help taking one Amendment at a time, and it was a very cheap argument to put forward. It was really unworthy of the right hon. and learned Gentleman or his right hon. Friend.
I also thought that he took rather too far the argument that the Bill makes no difference to the Nationality Act of 1948. It is true that in form it does not. The Act remains—and I shall return to that point later. But the Bill makes a very great deal of difference in fact. Citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies—a status created by the Measure introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields in 1948 stall have the right of free entry into this country until this Bill becomes law. This is a very important part of the status of a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. The Bill would take that right away, and to say that it makes no difference to the Act of 1948 is to talk in pure formalities. It makes a substantial difference. The Bill is full of facades of this kind. The treatment of the Irish is another of the facades, as is the pretence that it is not a colour Bill and that it does not affect the status of the citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
The Attorney-General seemed to be in doubt—and I think that doubt persisted from the moment his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary spoke and throughout most of the speeches made by his hon. Friends—as to which leg he should rest on in arguing the case for


the Bill. We should like to know which argument the Government are resting on. Is it necessary, as the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) said, and as some words uttered by the Home Secretary suggested, for us to take a dramatic step that would keep lots of them out? That is one of the arguments we have heard. The other argument is that this is a tolerant Bill which will make no difference; that it is just something in reserve.
On the whole, the Attorney-General seemed to come down in favour of the second argument, which was also put forward by the hon. Member for Poole (Sir Richard Pilkington)—the argument that this is machinery for the future and is of really no great importance, and will not make any difference, but that things might happen and that we must therefore have the power in reserve. The argument is that it is much better to act quickly a long way ahead of any danger than it is to act too late. That is a most extraordinary doctrine for this Government, which in no other field have shown the slightest desire to move fast in connection with any kind of problem.
If the argument is that although the Bill is not needed at the moment it might be needed in the future, and that we must have powers to act in reserve, it is difficult to understand why the Bill has been brought in so hurriedly that the Government have not been able to discover a way in which the Irish can be effectively brought in. This was bound to cause trouble through the Commonwealth and in the Colonies. It has evoked feelings that this Bill is a colour bar. It would have been quite reasonable if the Government had introduced a Measure which imposed certain health clearances and certain rights to deport criminals, accompanied by real proposals to cope with the problem of over-crowding, which is the substantial problem that faces us.
But the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot rest on the argument that overcrowding is the real problem and then say that the Bill will not make any difference, and that it merely provides a power to hold in reserve. That will not do anything to prevent overcrowding. Indeed, it will make overcrowding

worse. In order to prevent overcrowding we must either stop all immigration, which the Government do not want to do, or cope with the problem—

Sir Kenneth Pickthorn: The right hon. Gentleman has already made a Second Reading speech once.

Mr. Gordon Walker: If the hon. Member does not want to hear me and leaves the Chamber, it will not break my heart.
I now turn to the question of consultation, about which the Home Secretary spoke in some detail. It seems to be established beyond doubt that the Government, on 13th October—a date of some importance, as I shall show in a moment—first informed the Prime Minister of the West Indies of their intention to introduce the Bill. They informed him in very broad terms without going into detail.
Clearly the Government regarded the critical date as 11th October. That was the date on which the Home Secretary announced the intention to introduce this Bill to the Conservative Party Conference, because the Prime Minister said to us—it is reported in HANSARD of 14th November at column 190—that Commonwealth Governments—by which the right hon. Gentleman meant fully sovereign Governments—had been informed some three weeks before the right hon. Gentleman made his announcement on 11th October. They therefore regarded 11th October, and the announcement by the right hon. Gentleman to the Conservative Party conference of the Government's intention to introduce a Measure of this kind, as the critical date.
The Government did not inform the Prime Minister of the West Indies until 13th October. Two days later—after the whole world knew of their intention to do this—they gave him no information, except a vague idea, apparently, that there would be vouchers used, with no possibility of commenting. It seems to me—in respect of a Commonwealth country like the West Indies, which is so intimately affected by this Bill—really callous and irresponsible. To fail to consult him in this way and to give information after the critical date in such a form that it was impossible to comment on it is almost a deliberate insult.
I should like to return to the point made by the Attorney-General about the


Act of 1948, and, indeed, to the Representation of the People Act. I am not sure the Government fully realise what they are doing with this Bill and if we can amend it in this way we shall make it a good deal better. It is breaking up or rendering nugatory and meaningless the category of citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. This category was set up by the 1948 Act, and it is treasured. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Labour Party showed how this common citizenship is treasured in the West Indies and other Colonies, and, of course, it is logical.
We have done this, and we did it in 1948, because we have a responsibility for the Colonies. In the last resort we can govern them, we can over-ride their decisions, and therefore we must accept responsibility. This responsibility is now to be abandoned. We have the same power of Government as before, but we are rejecting and throwing away the responsibility. The way in which the Government are doing it is, I suggest going to infringe—this is to the best of my ability a legal argument, if I am wrong the right hon. and learned Gentleman will correct me—and interfere with the rights of some voters in this country and even some potential Members of Parliament in this country.
Section 4 the British Nationality Act. 1948, says that everyone born within the United Kingdom and Colonies is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. That is the definition. Section 1 says that citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies are to be treated as British subjects. That is really what is established by the British Nationality Act, 1948. Anyone born within the United Kingdom and Colonies is a British subject. Then the Representation of the People Act, 1949. defined electors as British subjects resident for a certain time in this country. And, of course, British subjects, wherever they come from, are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies and are capable of being elected to this House.
Therefore, this Bill and this Amendment dealts with people who are electors, or who could be electors, and many of them are eligible for election to this House. Were this Amendment not carried and they were admitted under conditions

setting a period for which they could stay and relating to work and so forth, and if as under Clause 14 (3) they could be arrested without warrant if it was thought by the immigration officer rightly or wrongly that they had broken those conditions, they could then be sentenced by a court to six months imprisonment and, under another Clause, because that is a sentence of imprisonment, they could be deported.
It follows logically, I think, subject to correction, that we are now saying for the first time in our history that electors of this Parliament can in certain circumstances be deported at the discretion of the Home Secretary. Even someone who was a candidate for election to this House, or perhaps elected to it, at the discretion of the Home Secretary, can be deported under this Measure. When I pointed this out to the Prime Minister in Questions a day or two ago, he said that if it were true it would be a very disturbing and alarming interference with our normal procedures.
I do not say that it is likely to happen but that it could happen solely because the Government are introducing this Bill. If the Government come to the conclusion that that is a possible consequence of the Measure they are now asking us to pass, I urge them to think about it again and to try to find another legal way of achieving their purpose, because we certainly do not want voters, and possibly Members of Parliament, to be deportable. That would be a very grave departure from all our traditions.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) spoke, I thought, both relevantly and very powerfully about the effect of bringing this concept of United Kingdom and Colonies citizenship to those who are also citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies in our African colonies. Britons out there depend very much upon a multi-racial society which, as the Leader of the House knows, is growing. They depend on this idea that there is not a real distinction between citizens of the United Kingdom and of the colonies. When these countries are growing in this way and when British minorities there


depend upon racial and legal distinctions not being made, it seems very hard to believe that the Leader of the House could really have understood what was happening when he gave his blessing to this Bill. It is something which is so much against our interests as a colonial Power bringing multi-racial societies to independence. It is so grotesquely against those interests that I cannot understand how the right hon. Gentleman brought himself to agree to a Bill which does this at this time.
A number of hon. Members, including the Attorney-General, have spoken about the bursting numbers of people in the West Indies having to go somewhere and all coming here. The hon. Member for Poole asked how many I thought should be the limiting factor. How that argument is compatible with the other argument that this Bill is not going to be used but is just a reserve power I leave the Attorney-General to sort out. He used the two arguments. I suppose that he thought they were far enough apart in his speech for us not to connect them. He used the argument about the bursting numbers and the terrible problem and yet said that the Government are not going to do anything but want the powers in case they should be necessary. He suggested that it is much too early, but it is better to act early. How he reconciles that with the argument about the bursting numbers, I do not know.
This question is put in a false form. The truth is that an expanding economy creates jobs and creates the need for jobs. We have to start from this point of view if we are seriously to tackle the problem. This has always been so. People from the Colonies could always come here. When India was a Colony, people from India could come here freely. It was always true that they had a backward standard of living and a relatively high rate of increase of population. We have a high standard of living. For many years since Lloyd George's reform we have had a better Welfare State than most outside countries and certainly a better one than any of them.

Mr. Ellis Smith: My right hon. Friend must not believe that.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Walker: It is certainly better than any the West Indies and India have. If people were likely to come from those countries solely because there was a higher standard of living and a better Welfare State here than they have at home, they would have come in the past. The truth is that they did not come in the past because we had mass unemployment. They are coming now in largish numbers because we have full employment. There is a direct demand sucking them in. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition showed that there has been an extrordinary close correlation between the demand for labour in this country and the number of immigrants coming here and staying. It is true that this year the correlation seems to have been somewhat broken. They are coming here a bit faster than the number of available jobs would lead one to suppose. The new factor this year is the Bill.

Mr. John Eden: The Bill has had a very small effect.

Mr. Gordon Walker: There has been the threat of and the agitation for the Bill. The hon. Gentleman himself said that there had been a factor of anticipation.

Mr. Eden: Very small.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I think that it has been considerable, but we agree that there is a factor of anticipation. To act as if it is certain that it is a small factor is dangerous. No one can be absolutely certain. It is dangerous to say, just because for the first time since records have been kept the correlation has been broken a little, that this is a great new trend. But the Attorney-General talked about a trend.

Mr. Eden: The Bill was announced in October. The figures my right hon. and learned Friend gave were for the first nine months of this year. The agitation for the Bill has continued for over seven years and I have taken part in it.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I agree. The hon. Gentleman has been consistent. He has agitated for seven years, but the chief agitation arose with great force in the course of this year. During the


course of the last seven years nobody took the agitation seriously. This year all sorts of people have taken it seriously. Our Press, the foreign Press and the Colonial Press have taken it seriously. The trend at which the right hon. and learned Gentleman ought to look is that of which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition spoke, namely the correlation between the number of vacant jobs and the inflow of immigrants. This is the real trend. It has moved up and down. There has not been the great upward trend which the right hon. and learned Gentleman tried to show by choosing merely a few years. If the Attorney-General had gone back further and checked the number of immigrants against the number of vacant jobs he would have found the most extraordinary correlation, except for this year when this new factor has entered the picture.
There is absolutely no evidence that there will be an appalling in-flow of immigrants. This is a figment of the imagination, as all the figures show. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite must face this point. Some of them are honest enough to say that they want to stop immigration—not like the Attorney-General who stands on two legs here, first on one and then on the other.

The Attorney-General: I always stand on two legs. I spoke of controlling immigration, which is very different from stopping it.

Mr. Gordon Walker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman first spoke of a dangerous trend, an urgent need and appalling numbers. Then he asked us not to exaggerate the importance of the Bill. He said that the Government will use it moderately. The right hon. and learned Gentleman in one of his voices and other hon. Members opposite who are honest enough to say that they want to stop immigration and not merely take these powers, which might be used, must decide whether they are prepared to slow up our economy in order to do this. Or are they to get immigrants from elsewhere?
That is something they must face. If they are to shut off the present flow of immigrants, who come in because there are jobs for them and the economy

cannot run without them, those who wish to stop that immigration must either slow up the economy, make it more stagnant or draw in immigrants from Ireland, Italy, or wherever it may be. We should be told which of those courses they are really prepared to adopt to achieve their end. If they say that they will draw immigrants from somewhere else, that is a naked colour bar attitude, and they should tell us. If they want to slow up the economy, to stop immigration without colour bar—just keep them all out—we should be told that, because we know that we would then head into a slump.
The hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), who made a very radical speech, should tell us which of these two courses he is prepared to adopt. That is what he would not tell us, and will not tell us, because both answers are very dangerous for him to give. Nevertheless, he must give one or the other if he is to be at all logical or consistent—and if he is prepared to give either answer now I am prepared to listen to him now.

Mr. Ronald Bell: The right hon. Gentleman is very kind, but I thought that I talked too long as it was, and I also made a Second Reading speech. I would be delighted to give the answer, but not in an intervention—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I cannot deal with a subject like that by intervention, but I shall certainly seek an opportunity to do so in the course of the Bill.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I certainly look forward to hearing the answer. It is striking, though, that throughout this whole debate the answer has not been given by any hon. Member opposite who shares the hon. Member's view.
On the question of Ireland, both the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General seemed excessively evasive. I want to make it perfectly clear that none of us on this side wants to keep out the Irish. Indeed, our intention is the opposite; we want them all in. We want them all to have the same present right to come in, but we say that it would be monstrous to give the Irish, who are not Commonwealth citizens, who are not citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, a preferential status over those who are.
The Secretary of State used some extraordinary arguments. He said that we had to leave the Irish out of the operation of the Bill because we had a very close association with them, because we had a common citizenship with them, and because they were voters in this country. That applies to all citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. We have with them the close association and the shared citizenship and, when they are here, they can vote exactly as do the Irish. That is no argument at all. His argument for keeping the Irish out of the operation of the Bill would apply in advocacy of our Amendment.
The right hon. Gentleman suggested, and I was staggered to hear it, that the Republican Government of Ireland were prepared—so I understood him to say—to apply a colour bar Bill to their own ports to keep out coloured Commonwealth citizens, including those from the West Indies, in order, apparently, to buy themselves off from a threat made by the right hon. Gentleman. That is what I understood him to say. There was the little characteristic ambiguity. We did not know how he knew what the Government of Ireland would do. We did not know whether he had read about it in the newspapers, or whether someone had rung him up. But we were told that the Government of Southern Ireland were to impose a colour bar immigration Bill which would apply at their own ports.
That, I cannot believe—I just cannot credit that the Irish Government will do that—but the right hon. Gentleman is certainly trying to force them to do that. He says, "If you do not do it, I will try to enforce this Bill. Under it, I hold powers in reserve, and if you yourselves do not impose a colour bar immigration Bill, we will bring all the powers of the Bill to work against you." I do not think that that is a threat which—

Mr. S. Silverman: The right hon. Gentleman said that if the Southern Irish Government did not do that he would consider measures to close the ports in this country.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Yes, he said that he would enforce the Bill, which would mean that it would be enforced at our own ports.
This is a threat which Southern Ireland should not take seriously, because the right hon. Gentleman has himself said that it would be impossible to operate it. Thus, they have been fully warned now that this is an "empty threat" and if, as I believe, they will have nothing to do with this sort of control at their ports, they need have no fear that the teeth of the Bill will be set into force against them.
Concerning this question of trying to force the Irish to impose a colour bar immigration Bill, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) dealt with this dramatically in an intervention when he said, in effect, "The Government are saying that if the Irish immigration continues to be white they will let the immigrants in, but if black immigrants begin to come over the Atlantic they will try to keep them out."
After all, if Canadians come to Britain through Southern Ireland—a perfectly easy and natural way for them to come—does anyone think that the Government would try to enforce the Bill because Commonwealth citizens were coming in? Of course not. They would all be white and the immigration officers would not even notice them. But if Jamaicans or Barbadans start coming across the Atlantic, through Ireland to Britain, then that would be another matter.
When the right hon. Gentleman was asked what would happen if Jamaicans came to Britain through Ireland the right hon. Gentleman gave an extraordinary answer. He said that the Government were determined to keep out Commonwealth citizens and that they had to rely on the ingenuity of the immigration officers. That means that the immigration officers can tell, by appearance, a coloured immigrant—but not a white one. It cannot mean anything else. The immigration officer will not notice a Canadian—but he will notice a Jamaican.
We are getting used to the right hon. Gentleman's language. Ingenuity is becoming a synonym for the practice of the colour bar, for this is the only possible meaning that can be given to the use of that word.
A point which has not been mentioned in the debate so far, yet which seems to


be of great importance, is that if the Amendment is rejected we will be the only Western country that has, or has had, colonial possessions to take this attitude towards the inhabitants of those Colonies or ex-Colonies.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite should remember cases such as Holland, which has a common citizenship with the Dutch West Indies. The people can move about freely in that instance and people from the Dutch West Indies move easily to Holland. Further, the French West Indies are a part of metropolitan France. The people in this instance can vote and move about freely. The United States allow inhabitants of their islands to move about freely in large numbers and, indeed, enormous numbers of Porto Ricans go to New York.
As I say, we would be the only country of these Western nations to take this attitude towards our Colonies or ex-Colonies. And all the arguments adduced by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, South should equally be related to Holland, the Dutch West Indies and to France, where the same population increases are taking place. Those countries have not taken this palliative measure. They have not listened to the pressure from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) and certain newspapers. Only the British Government will be in that position.
Then, of course, if we enter the Common Market we will be in a grotesque situation. Let us suppose that we are in the Common Market. People from the Dutch West Indies can go to Holland and then come here. People from the French West Indies can go to France and then come here. Jamaicans cannot come here with the same freedom. People can go from the Dutch West Indies to Holland with absolute freedom; they can then move in the Common Market with practically complete freedom, and, after a few years, with complete freedom. They can come to this country with complete freedom, or, if not with complete freedom, with much more freedom than, if the Bill were law, Jamaicans could come here.
9.30 p.m.
It is no good hon. Members shaking their heads. Everyone knows that that is true. Many people suspect that this is

one of the hidden reasons behind the Bill, that it is the sort of price, like getting rid of Commonwealth Preference, one has to pay if one wants to enter the Common Market. If the Amendment is not passed, we shall be in the extraordinary position of being unable to keep out a person of colour from the Dutch West Indies who goes to Holland first and then comes here, but we shall be able to keep out a Jamaican of colour who goes to Ireland first and then wants to come here in a similar way.
Indeed, I think that the same would apply, so far as I understand it, if he went to Paris; we should be able to exclude him under the Bill, or put him under all sorts of conditions, whereas, if he came from the French West Indies he would have much greater freedom of entry into this country. Such a situation would be grotesque.

Mr. John Harvey: The right hon. Gentleman should be careful. It is important that there should be no misunderstanding. While I am by no means happy about many of the provisions in the Bill, or about the haste with which it has been introduced—I think that it would have been much better if we had taken a little more time to think it out and debate it—I fear that the right hon. Gentleman's argument is in danger of leading to a great deal of misunderstanding.
Under the Treaty of Rome, someone wishing to move from one country to another may do so only if there is a vacancy for him to go to and if it is a vacancy for which he is qualified. For his first year of residence in the country, he has to stay in the job to which he went. Even if he has his term renewed for the second and third years, he must go on doing the job for which he is qualified. It is only in the fourth year that he may move to another comparable job, and only after the fourth year is he free to do anything.
If we were to give what the right hon. Gentleman apparently pretends is this freedom to people from our Colonies and from the Commonwealth, would it not follow that many of them could not come here at all because they would not be qualified to do jobs, whereas at the moment, and under the Bill, they would be able to come and work provided that any sort of job was open to them?

Mr. Gordon Walker: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and the way he put it and, indeed, for his views about the Bill. I think that I should be in agreement with him if I amended my first remarks to say that, after four years in the Common Market, the things I have described would be happening. I am quite prepared to do that. I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that, after four years, there would be much freer entry.

Mr. Harvey: I do not want to detain the right hon. Gentleman, but four years is a long time. I think that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will agree that, if, or when, this House has to enact new provisions about this matter as a result of our signing the Treaty of Rome—if, or when, we do—then the whole House would accept that it would be illogical for us to continue to discriminate against members of our Colonies and Commonwealth in some way quite different from the provisions of the Treaty.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I am quite prepared to accept that that is the genuine view of the hon. Member, but I would not put it beyond his Front Bench to do exactly what I fear. They are doing it now. While negotiating to enter the Common Market, they have picked this very moment to introduce the Bill. It shows their attitude.
Of course, after four years, which seems to be the time, they may well not be in office. But were they in office I should be very much alarmed that they would do just this. It is the whole character of the Bill, which has been hastily and ill-considered, to use the words of the hon. Member for Waltham-stow, East (Mr. J. Harvey). Why was it introduced in this hasty and ill-considered way? Why will not the Government do something just as hasty and ill-considered concerning the Common Market?
This is a very great Bill that the Government have introduced. It makes a tremendous change in our law. It is something which gravely offends people throughout the West Indies, for instance, who are devoted to this country and have a great attachment to it. It creates the impression throughout the world that we are introducing a new colour bar

element into our legislation. The Bill has been introduced hastily and without consideration and, therefore, for motives which are not too easy to understand. It will be very greatly improved if this Amendment is carried. It will not solve everything in the Bill, but it will solve a great deal.
The Amendment would make the Bill a great deal less bad. It would not offend, for instance, the feeling of the people in the West Indies if this Amendment were carried. That would be a great gain, not only in the West Indies, but in many Colonies where there is a great attachment to their relationship with the United Kingdom which is embodied, not only in the 1948 Act, but in the force that we gave the Act by allowing people free entry.
I hope that hon. Gentlemen will consider the matter very carefully before they reject and vote against the Amendment. There are many hon. Members opposite who do not want to do harm to the Colonies or to the emerging countries of the Commonwealth. Many of them may be persuading themselves that the Bill will not do all the harm that we have said it will do. I ask them to think very carefully. There is much evidence now that it will do the sort of harm that we are alleging, evidence from observers and from leaders of the people about whom we are talking.
Hon. Members opposite have the majority at the moment. They have in their hands and in their care these things which we have treasured for so long that we almost took them for granted until the Bill was suddenly thrust on us. We never thought about altering these things; we thought that they were permanent. They ought to be permanent. The Government have suddenly thrown the matter into doubt. I ask hon. Members opposite to remember their very grave responsibility now and during later stages of the Bill. If it produces the sort of results that we think it will produce, they will be responsible. We can only argue; they can decide. They will be responsible if this sort of result is produced. I hope that before the Bill is finished, and it leaves Committee, and, indeed, on this Amendment, we shall be able to shake the Government so much that we compel them to think again.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Martin Redmayne): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Martin Redmayne) rose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Division No. 19.]
AYES
[9.38 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Loveys, Walter H.


Aitken, W. T.
Farr, John
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Finlay, Graeme
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Fisher, Nigel
McAdden, Stephen


Atkins, Humphrey
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McLaren, Martin


Barber, Anthony
Foster, John
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia


Barlow, Sir John
Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Barter, John
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Freeth, Denzil
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)


Beamish, col. Sir Tufton
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
McMaster, Stanley R.


Bell, Ronald
Gammans, Lady
Macmillan, Rt.Hn. Harold(Bromley)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Gibson-Watt, David
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Biffen, John
Gilmour, Sir John
Maddan, Martin


Bingham, R. M.
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Maginnis, John E.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Bishop, F. P.
Godber, J. B.
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Black, Sir Cyril
Goodhew, Victor
Marlowe, Anthony


Bossom, Clive
Gower, Raymond
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest


Bourne-Arton, A.
Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Marten, Neil


Box, Donald
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Green, Alan
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Gresham Cooke, R.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Braine, Bernard
Grimston, Sir Robert
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Brewis, John
Gurden, Harold
Montgomery, Fergus


Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.Sir Walter
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr)


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Brooman-White, R.
Hare, Rt. Hon. John
Morgan, William


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morrison, John


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Buck, Antony
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Nabarro, Gerald


Bullard, Denys
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Hastings, Stephen
Noble, Michael


Burden, F. A.
Hay, John
Nugent, Sir Richard


Butler, Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Hendry, Forbes
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hiley, Joseph
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Carr, Robert (Mircham)
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wytnenshawe)
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Cary, Sir Robert
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Channon, H. P. G.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Partridge, E.


Chataway, Christopher
Hocking, Philip N.
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Holland, Philip
Peel, John


Cleaver, Leonard
Hollingworth, John
Percival, Ian


Cole, Norman
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Peyton John


Cooke, Robert
Hopkins, Alan
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Cooper, A. E.
Hornby, R. P.
Pike, Miss Mervyn



Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame



Corfield, F. V.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Costain. A. P.
Hughes-Young, Michael
Pilman, Sir James


Coulson, J. M.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pitt, Miss Edith


Craddock, Sir Berestord
Iremonger, T. L.
Pott, Percivall


Critchley, Julian
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
James, David
Price, David (Eastleign)


Crowder, F. P.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Prior, J. M. L.


Cunningham, Knox
Johnson. Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Curran, Charles

Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Currie, G. B. H.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)



Dalkeith, Earl of
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Dance, James
Joseph, Sir Keith
Pym, Francis


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Deedes, W. F.
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Ramsden, James


de Ferranti, Basil
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Rawlinson, Peter


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kimball, Marcus
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Kitson, Timothy
Rees, Hugh


Doughty, Charles
Lagden, Godfrey
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Drayson, G. B.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Renton, David


du Cann, Edward
Leather, E. H. C.
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Duncan, Sir James
Leburn, Gilmour
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool)


Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Robson Brown, Sir William


Eden, John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Roots, William


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Elliott, R. W .(Nwcstle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Litchfield, Capt. John
Russell, Ronald


Emery, Peter
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
St. Clair, M.


Errington, Sir Eric
Longbottom, Charles
Scott-Hopkins, James


Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Longden, Gilbert
Sharples, Richard

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 276, Noes 207.

Shaw, M.
Teeling, William
Wall, Patrick


Shepherd, William
Temple, John M.
Ward, Dame Irene


Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Webster, David


Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Whitelaw, William


Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Spearman, Sir Alexander
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Speir, Rupert
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Stanley, Hon. Richard
Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Wise, A. R.


Stevens, Geoffrey
Turner, Colin
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Woodhouse, C. M.


Stodart, J. A.
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Woollam, John


Storey, Sir Samuel
Vane, W. M. F.
Worsley, Marcus


Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Tapsell, Peter
Vickers, Miss Joan



Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Walder, David
Mr. Edward Wakefield and


Taylor,F.H.(M'ch'ter &amp; Moss Side)
Walker, Peter
Mr. Chichester-Clark


Taylor, W. J. (Bradford N.)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek





NOES


Abse, Leo
Gourlay, Harry
Moody, A. S.


Ainsley, William
Grey, Charles
Morris, John


Albu, Austen
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mort, D. L.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Moyle, Arthur


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Mulley, Frederick


Awbery, Stan
Grimond, J.
Neal, Harold


Baird, John
Gunter, Ray
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Noe1-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Oliver, G. H.


Bence Cyril
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Oram, A, E.


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hannan, William
Oswald, Thomas


Blackburn, F.
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Owen, Will


Blyton, William
Hayman, F. H.
Paget, R. T.


Boardman, H.
Henderson, Rt.Hn.Arthur(RwlyRegis)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Pargiter, G. A.


Bowles, Frank
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Parker, John


Boyden, James
Hilton, A. V.
Paton, John


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Holman, Percy
Pavitt, Laurence


Brockway, A. Fenner
Holt, Arthur
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Houghton, Douglas
Peart, Frederick


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pentland, Norman


Callaghan, James
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Popplewell, Ernest



Hunter, A. E.



Chapman, Donald
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Cliffe, Michael
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Probert, Arthur


Collick, Percy
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Randall, Harry


Cronin, John
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Rankin, John


Crosland, Anthony
Jeger, George
Redhead, E. C.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Reid, William


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rhodes, H.


Davies,Rt.Hn.Clement(Montgomery)
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Ross, William


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Kenyon, Clifford
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)


Deer, George
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Delargy. Hugh
King, Dr. Horace
Short, Edward


Dempsey, James
Lawson, George
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Diamond, John
Ledger, Ron
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Dodds, Norman
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Skeffington, Arthur


Driberg, Tom
Lipton, Marcus
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Logan, David
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Loughlin, Charles
Small, William


Edwards. Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
MacColl, James
Snow, Julian


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Mclnnes, James
Sorensen, R. W.


Evans, Albert
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Fernyhough, E.
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Spriggs, Leslie


Finch, Harold
McLeavy, Frank
Steele, Thomas


Fitch, Alan
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Fletcher, Eric
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Storehouse, John


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Stones, William


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Manuel, A. C.
Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)


Forman, J. C.
Mapp, Charles
Swingler, Stephen


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mason, Roy
Symonds, J. B.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Mellish, R. J.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mendelson, J. J.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


George,LadyMeganLloyd(Crmrthn)
Millan, Bruce
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Ginsburg, David
Mitchison, G. R.
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Monslow, Walter
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)







Thorpe, Jeremy
Whitlock, William
Winterbottom, R. E.


Timmons, John
Wigg, George
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Wilkins, W. A.
Woof, Robert


Wainwright, Edwin
Willey, Frederick
Wyatt, Woodrow


Warbey, William
Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Weitzman, David
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)



Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Williams, w. T. (Warrington)
Mr. Charles A Howell and


White, Mrs. Eirene
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Mr. McCann.

Questions put accordingly, That the proposed words be there inserted:—

Division No. 20.]
AYES
[9.49 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Gunter, Ray
Owen, Will


Ainsley, William
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Paget, R. T.


Albu, Austen
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne valley)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Pargiter, G. A.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Harman, William
Parker, John


Awbery, Start
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Paton, John


Baird, John
Hayman, F. H.
Pavitt, Laurence


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Henderson, Rt.Hn.Arthur(RwlyRegis)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Peart, Frederick


Bence, Cyril
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Pentland, Norman


Blackburn, F.
Hilton, A. V.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Blyton, William
Holman, Percy
Popplewell, Ernest


Boardman, H.
Holt, Arthur
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Houghton, Douglas
Probert, Arthur


Bowles, Frank
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Boyden, James
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Randall, Harry


Braddock, Mrs, E. M.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Rankin, John


Brockway, A, Fenner
Hunter, A. E.
Redhead, E. C.


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Reid, William


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Rhodes, H.


Butter, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Callaghan, James
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Chapman, Donald
Jeger, George
Ross, William


Cliffe, Michael
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)


Collick, Percy
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Short, Edward


Cronin, John
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Crosland, Anthony
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Skeffington, Arthur


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Kenyon, Clifford
Slater, Mrs. Hamlet (Stoke, N.)


Davies, Rt .Hn.Clement(Montgomery)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)



King, Dr. Horace
Small, William


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lawson, George
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Ledger, Ron
Snow, Julian


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannook)
Sorensen, R. W.



Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lipton, Marcus
Spriggs, Leslie


Deer, George
Logan, David
Steele, Thomas


Delargy, Hugh
Loughlin, Charles
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Dempsey, James
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stonehouse, John


Diamond, John
MacColl, James
Stones, William


Dodds, Norman
McInnes, James
Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent)


Driberg, Tom
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Swingler, Stephen


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Symonds, J. B.


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
McLeavy, Frank
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Evans, Albert
Manuel, A. c.
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Fernyhough, E.
Mapp, Charles
Thorpe, Jeremy


Finch, Harold
Mason, Roy
Timmons, John


Fitch, Alan
Mellish, R. J.
Ungoed-Thomas Sir Lynn


Fletcher, Eric
Mendelson, J. J.
Wade, Donald


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Millan, Bruce
Wainwright, Edwin


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mitchison, G. R.
Warbey, William


Forman, J. C.
Monslow, Walter
Watkins, Tudor


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Moody, A. S.
Weitzman, David


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Morris, John
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mort, D. L.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


George,LadyMeganLloyd(Crmrthn)
Moyle, Arthur
White, Mrs. Eirene


Ginsburg, David
Mulley, Frederick
Whitlock, William


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Neal, Harold
Wigg, George


Gourlay, Harry
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Wilkins, W. A.


Grey, Charles
Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)
Willey, Frederick


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Oram, A. E.
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Oswald, Thomas
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Grimond, J

The committee divided: Ayes 210, Noes 279.

Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Woof, Robert



Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Wyatt, Woodrow
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Winterbottom, R. E.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Mr. Charles A. Howell and


Woodburn, Rt- Hon. A.

Mr. McCann.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, w.)


Aitken, W. T.
Foster, John
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)


Allan, Robert (Paddington, s.)
Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
McMaster, Stanley R.


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Harold(Bromley)


Atkins, Humphrey
Freeth, Denzil
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)


Barber, Anthony
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Barlow, Sir John
Gammans, Lady
Maddan, Martin


Barter, John
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Maginnis, John E.


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Gibson-Watt, David
Manningham-Bulier, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Gilmour, Sir John
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Bell, Ronald
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Marlowe, Anthony


Bennett, Or. Reginald (Got &amp; Fhm)
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Godber, J. B.
Marten, Neil


Biffen, John
Goodhew, Victor
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)


Bingham, R. M.
Gower, Raymond
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Bishop, F. P.
Gram-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Black, Sir Cyril
Green, Alan
Montgomery, Fergus


Bossom, Clive
Gresham Cooke, R.
Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr)


Bourne-Arton, A.
Grimston, Sir Robert
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Box, Donald
Gurden, Harold
Morgan, William


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Morrison, John


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Braine, Bernard
Hare, Rt. Hon. John
Nabarro, Gerald


Brewis, John
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Bromley Davenport,Lt.-Col.Sir Walter
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere(Macclesf'd)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Noble, Michael


Brooman-White, R.
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Nugent, Sir Richard


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hastings, Stephen
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Hay, John
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Bryan, Paul
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Buck, Antony
Hendry, Forbes
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Bullard, Denys
Hiley, Joseph
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Hill. Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Burden, F. A.
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Partridge, E.


Butter, Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Percival, Ian


Campbell, Cordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Mucking, Philip N.
Peyton, John


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Holland, Philip
Plckthorn, Sir Kenneth


Cary, Sir Robert
Hollingworth, John
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Channon, H. P. G.
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W)
Hopkins, Alan
Pitman, Sir James


Cleaver, Leonard
Hornby, R. p.
Pitt, Miss Edith


Cole, Norman
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Pott, Percivall


Cooke, Robert
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Cooper, A. E.
Hughes-Young, Michael
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Prior, J. M. L.


Corfield, F. V.
Iremonger, T. L.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Costain, A. P.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Coulson, J. M.
James, David
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Pym, Francis


Critchley, Julian
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Ramsden, James


Crowder, F. P.
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Rawlinson, Peter


Cunningham, Knox
Joseph, Sir Keith
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Curran, Charles
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rees, Hugh


Currie, G. B. H.
Kerans, Cdr. J. s.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Renton, David


Dance, James
Kimball, Marcus
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kitson, Timothy
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Deedes, w. F.
Lagden, Godfrey
Robson Brown, Sir William


de Ferranti, Basil
Lanoaster, Col. C. G.
Roots, William


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Leather, E. H. C.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Leburn, Gilmour
Russell, Ronald


Doughty, Charles
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
St. Clair, M.


Dray son, G. D.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Scott-Hopkins, James


du Cann, Edward
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Sharpies, Richard


Duncan, Sir James
Litchfield, capt. John
Shaw, M.


Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Shepherd, William


Eden, John
Longbottom, Charles
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carahalton)
Longden, Gilbert
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Elliott, R.W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Loveys, Walter H.
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Emery, Peter
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher


Errington, Sir Eric
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
McAdden, Stephen
Speir, Rupert


Farey-Jones, F. W.
McLaren, Martin
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Farr, John
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia



Finlay, Graeme
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Stevens, Geoffrey







Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Ward, Dame Irene


Stodart, J. A.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter
Webster, David


Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Storey, Sir Samuel
Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Whitelaw, William


Studholme, Sir Henry
Turner, Colin
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Tapsell, Peter
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Vane, W. M. F.
Wise, A. R.


Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Taylor, F. (M'ch'ter &amp; Moss Side)
Vickers, Miss Joan
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis
Woodhouse, C. M.


Teeling, William
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Woollam, John


Temple, John M.
Walder, David
Worsley, Marcus


Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Walker, Peter
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek



Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Wall, Patrick
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Chichester-Clark and Mr. Peel.

Committee report Progress.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Question put,
That the Proceedings on the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill be exempted, at this day's

Division No. 21.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Cooper, A. E.
Gower, Raymond


Aitken, W. T,
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Grant, Rt. Hon. William


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Corfield, F. V.
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Costain, A. P.
Green, Alan


Atkins, Humphrey
Coulson, J. M.
Gresham Cooke, R.


Barber, Anthony
Craddock, Sir Beresford
Crimston, Sir Robert


Barlow, Sir John
Critchley, Julian
Gurden, Harold


Barter, John
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Batsford, Brian
Crowder, F. P.
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Cunningham, Knox
Hare, Rt. Hon. John


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Curran, Charles
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Bell, Ronald
Currie, G. B. H.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere(Macclesf'd)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Dalkeith, Earl of
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)


Berkeley, Humphry
Dance, James
Harvie Anderson, Miss


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, sir Henry
Hastings, Stephen


Biffen, John
Deedes, W. F.
Hay, John


Bingham, R. M.
de Ferranti, Basil
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hendry, Forbes


Bishop, F. P.
Donaldson, Cmdr, C. E. M.
Hiley, Joseph


Black, Sir Cyril
Doughty, Charles
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)


Bossom, Clive
Dray son, G. B.
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)


Bourne-Arton, A.
du Cann, Edward
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)


Box, Donald
Duncan, Sir James
Hirst, Geoffrey


Boyd-Carperrter, Rt. Hon. John
Eocles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Hocking, Philip N.


Braine, Bernard
Eden, John
Holland, Philip


Brewis, John
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hollingworth, John


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Elliott, R. W .(Nwestle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John


Brooman-White, R.
Emery, Peter
Hopkins, Alan



Errington, Sir Eric
Hornby, R. P.


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John


Bryan, Paid
Farr, John
Hughes-Young, Michael


Buck, Antony
Finlay, Graeme
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Bullard, Denys
Fisher, Nigel
Iremonger, T. L.


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Burden, F. A.
Foster, John
James, David


Butler, Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Freeth, Denzil
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Gammans, Lady
Joseph, Sir Keith


Cary, Sir Robert
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Channon, H. P. G.
Gibson-Watt, David
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.


Chataway, Christopher
Gilmour, Sir John
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Chichester-Clark, R.
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Kimball, Marcus


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Kitson, Timothy


Cleaver, Leonard
Godber, J. B.
Lagden, Godfrey


Cole, Norman
Goodhart, Philip
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Cooke, Robert
Goodhew, Victor
Leather, E. H. C.


It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN  left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Iain Macleod.]

The House divided: Ayes 282. Noes 208.

Leburn, Gilmour
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Storey, Sir Samuel


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdate)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Partridge, E.
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Linstead, Sir Hugh
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Tapsell, Peter


Litchfield, Capt. John
Percival, Ian
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Peyton, John
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Longbottom, Charles
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Taylor, F. (M'ch'ter &amp; Moss Side)


Longden, Gilbert
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Loveys, Walter H.
Pilkington, Sir Richard
Teeling, William


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Pitman, Sir James
Temple, John M.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Pitt, Miss Edith
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


McAdden, Stephen
Pott, Percivall
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


McLaren, Martin
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Prior, J. [...]. L.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter


Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


McMaster, Stanley R.
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Turner, Colin


Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Harold(Bromley)
Pym, Francis
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Van Straubenzee, W. R.


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Ramsden, James
Vane, W. M. F.


Maddan, Martin
Rawlinson, Peter
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Maginnis, John E.
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Vickers, Miss Joan


Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Rees, Hugh
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Renton, David
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Marlowe, Anthony
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Walder, David


Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Walker, Peter


Marten, Nell
Robson Brown, Sir William
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Roots, William
Ward, Dame Irene


Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Webster, David


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Russell, Ronald



Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
St. Clair, M.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Montgomery, Fergus
Scott-Hopkins, James
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr)
Sharpies, Richard
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Shaw, M.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Morgan, William
Shepherd, William
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Morrison, John
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn
Wise, A. R.


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Nabarro, Gerald
Smyth, Brig, Sir John (Norwood)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher
Woodhouse, C. M.


Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Woollam, John


Noble, Michael
Speir, Rupert
Worsley, Marcus


Nugent, Sir Richard
Stanley, Hon. Richard
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Stevens, Geoffrey



Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Osborn, John (Hallam)
Stodart, J. A.
Mr. Whitelaw and Mr. Peel.


Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm





NOES


Abse, Lao
Davies, Ifor (Cower)
Gunter, Ray


Ainsley, William
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham. W.)


Albu, Austen
Deer, George
Hail, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Delargy, Hugh
Hamilton, William (West File)


Alton, Scholefield (Crewe)
Dempsey, James
Hannan, William


Awbery, Stan
Diamond, John
Hart, Mrs. Judith


Baird, John
Dodds, Norman
Hayman, F. H.


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Driberg, Tom
Henderson,Rt.Hn. Arthur(RwlyRegls)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Herbison, Miss Margaret


Bence, Cyril
Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Hill, J. (Midlothian)


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Hilton, A. V.


Blackburn, F.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Holman, Percy


Blyton, William
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Holt, Arthur


Boardman, H.
Evans, Albert
Houghton, Douglas


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Fernyhough, E.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Bowles, Frank
Finch, Harold
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Boyden, James
Fitch, Alan
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen. N.)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Fletcher, Erie
Hunter, A. E.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Hynd, H, (Accrington)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Forman, J. C.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Callaghan, dames
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas


Chapman, Donald
Galpern, Sir Myer
Jeger, George


Cliffe, Michael
George,LadyMeganLloyd(Crmrthn)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Collick, Percy
Ginsburg, David
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham. S.)


Cronin, John
Gourlay, Harry
Jones, Jack (Rotherham>


Crosland, Anthony
Greenwood, Anthony
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Grey, Charles
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Kenyon, Clifford


Davies,Rt.Hn.Clement(Montgomery)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
King, Dr. Horace


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Grimond, J.
Lawson, George







Ledger, Ron
Parker, John
Stress, Dr.Barnett (Stoke-On-Trent, C.)


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Pavitt, Laurence
Swingler, Stephen


Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Symonds, J. B.


Lipton, Marcus
Peart, Frederick
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Logan, David
Pentland, Norman
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Loughlin, Charles
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Popplewell, Ernest
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


MacColl, James
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


McInnes, James
Probert, Arthur
Thorpe, Jeremy


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Timmons, John


Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Randall, Harry
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


McLeavy, Frank
Rankin, John
Wade, Donald


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Redhead, E. C.
Wainwright, Edwin


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Reid, William
Warbey, William


Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Rhodes, H.
Watkins, Tudor


Manuel, A. c.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Weltzman, David


Mapp, Charles
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Wefts, Percy (Faversham)


Mason, Roy
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Mellish, R. J.
Ross, William
White, Mrs. Eirene


Mendelson, J. J.
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)
Whitlock, William


Millan, Bruce
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Wigg, George


Mitchison, G. R.
Short, Edward
Wilkins, W. A.


Monslow, Walter
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Willey, Frederick


Moody, A. S.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Morris, John
Skeffington, Arthur
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Moyle, Arthur
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Mulley, Frederick
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Neal, Harold
Small, William
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Snow, Julian
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Oliver, G. H.
Sorensen, R. W.
Woof, Robert


Oram, A. E.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Wyatt, Woodrow


Oswald, Thomas
Spriggs, Leslie
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Owen, Will
Steele, Thomas



Paget, R. T.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
TELLERS for THE NOES:


Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Storehouse, John
Mr. Charles A. Howell and


Pargiter, G. A.
Stones, William
Mr. McCann.

Orders of the Day — COMMONWEALTH IMMIGRANTS BILL

Again considered in Committee.

The Deputy-Chairman (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): I call the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) to move Amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 17. I think that it will be convenient to discuss, at the same time, Amendments No. 4 and No. 5, both in page 1, line 17, and Amendments No. 31 and No. 32, both in page 2, line 34, except for the provisions relating to students.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: On a point of order. I do not know whether it is right to raise this matter in Committee, Sir William, but I understood the position to be that a Motion was moved from the Government Front Bench to report Progress, and that you then put the Motion concerning the suspension of the Standing Order. Most hon. Members on this side of the Committee were under the impression that the Motion moved was to report Progress. Either you were talking indistinctly, Sir William, or hon. Members on this side of the Committee need hearing aids. What was it all about?

The Deputy-Chairman: The normal position, if Mr. Speaker were occupying his Chair and if I, as Deputy-Chairman, or the Chairman of Ways and Means, were occupying this Chair would be that I, or the Chairman of Ways and Means, on vacating the Chair, would report to Mr. Speaker that we had made Progress. Mr. Speaker would then do what I did, namely, call upon the Prime Minister to move the Motion on the Order Paper referring to the Ten o'clock rule. What was carried out in this case was in order.

Mrs Eirene White: Will you explain your statement that we are not to discuss the parts of the Amendments relating to students, Sir William?

The Deputy-Chairman: The position is that the provisions relating to students have not been selected by the Chair for discussion now, but they will be discussed at a later stage, which will be more convenient for the Committee. That has been published—and I think it has been generally agreed on both sides—in the notice setting out the Amendments that are to be called together.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: May we have this quite clear, Sir William? You have indicated that we can discuss with Amendment No. 3


Amendments Nos. 4 and 5, and it is an integral and important part of both those Amendments that bona fide students should be totally exempted from the provisions of the Clause. We appreciate that the issues concerning bona fide students are somewhat different from the other issues raised in Amendment No. 3, but I should like it to be made quite clear that if we eliminate from the discussion on the Amendment you have called any reference to the position of bona fide students we can have a full and separate

debate on their position when we debate the Amendments which are related to them in Clause 2.

The Deputy-Chairman: That is so. I can give the hon. Member that assurance.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Would that be in connection with Amendment No. 30, Sir William?

The Deputy-Chairman: The intention is to call Amendment No. 30 later, but not with this group.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Donald Wade: I beg to move, in page 1, line 17, to leave out paragraph (c) and to insert:
(c) a person ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom on the first day of November, nineteen hundred and sixty-one; or
(d) a person who has in the five years previous 1.o his entry to the United Kingdom been ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom for a continuous period of two years; or
(e) the spouse of a person who is expected under paragraphs (a), (b), (c), or (d) of this subsection who is not living apart from such person under a decree of a Court of competent jurisdiction or under a deed of separation; or any child, stepchild or adopted child (having been adopted in a manner recognised by law) under the age of twenty-one years, of such person.
After the wide-ranging debate on the first Amendment we now turn to the consideration of some of the details and serious defects in this Bill. I preface my comments with two general observations. The first is that those who wish to see the Commonwealth flourish during the process of change from an Empire to a Commonwealth have striven to maintain the image of Britain as the mother country, and throughout the whole of the consideration of this Bill we should be continually asking ourselves, "Are we helping to maintain that image or to destroy it?" Secondly, we must recognise that some communities which form part of the Commonwealth owe their very existence as entities to Britain and to the British people. It is obvious from the speeches which have been delivered already that the West Indies provide a clear example of that.
I do not know how many slaves were originally brought to the West Indies. I am told the number is not less than 4 million. But today they regard themselves as British, and apart from the territories in which they live, these islands in the West Indies, their only other home is Britain. Furthermore, there are those people from this country, our own kith and kin, who have gone to live in the West Indies and are helping to create that community and to assist its economic advance.
It has been admitted by more than one hon. Member opposite that this Bill appears to have been drawn up hastily, and I agree. That becomes clear when

one tries to apply the provisions of the Bill to what one knows happens when immigrants come to this country. There seems to be an assumption that immigrants always come as a family unit, but that is not so. Very often the father of a family will come here either because there is employment for him or in search of employment. Having established a home, he will send for his wife and children. Similarly, one who may have been born in this country and gone to another part of the Commonwealth may come back and establish a home here, and then send for his wife and family.
Surely this is something which we ought to encourage and not discourage, but I do not see that it has been considered at all in the drafting of this Bill. I draw the attention of the Committee to subsection (2) of the Clause. This exception is very narrow. The subsection reads:
This section applies to any Commonwealth citizen not being"—
this is the exception—
(a) a person born in the United Kingdom;
(b) a person who holds a United Kingdom passport and is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies"—
I leave out the reference to Ireland—
(c) a person included in the passport of another person who is excepted under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of this subsection.
That is to say, this exception applies to those born in the United Kingdom or who hold United Kingdom passports and are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. I understand that as a general rule the names of members of the family do not appear on the same passport in the case of a man who comes to this country on his own in search of employment or to take up a post here and then later bring his family here. That would seem to create very real hardship which ought to be rectified.
The wording of the Amendment I have moved, in addition to the first two exceptions—those of the person born in the United Kingdom and the person holding a United Kingdom passport and being a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies—would add:
a person ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom on the first day of November, nineteen hundred and sixty-one; or


a person who has in the five years previous to his entry to the United Kingdom been ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom for a continuous period of two years;
There is another Amendment which is to be discussed with this one in which the period is one year. I say at once that I am quite willing to accept one year instead of two years. The third addition to the exception which we would add by our Amendment is:
the spouse of a person who is excepted under paragraphs (a), (b), (c), or (d).
We also include:
any child, stepchild or adopted child…under the age of twenty-one years,
That surely is a reasonable addition. In the debate we have been told that there are far too many illegitimate children in the West Indies. I am not going to debate that. Surely we agree on one thing, that we should encourage family life and people coming here as a unit. If the father comes first, by all means let him be encouraged to bring his wife and children later.
One might sum up the grounds for this Amendments as follows. The present is too restricted. The Attorney-General used the expression "belongers and non-belongers". It would seem that under the Bill there is to be a further distinction betwen belongers and the families of belongers. Under the Bill as it stands, I understand a distinction would be made between one who is born in this country and another who is not born in this country but has lived here for many years. It may be that such a person will be temporarily out of a job. If I correctly wrote down what I understood the Home Secretary to say, the result might be deportation.
The right hon. Gentleman was referring to the Irish and said that if nothing was done we might find that deportation was the only action possible for some wretched Irishman who finds himself without a job. Those were the words I wrote down when the Home Secretary was speaking. What about the poor wretched Jamaican who finds himself out of a job? What is to be the position if the father is in a job and his son is out of a job? That is not clear on the wording of this Clause. Surely we should include those who are ordinarly resident in this country even though they have

not United Kingdom passports. The test should not be where one happens to be on a particular day when this Bill comes into force.
Secondly, this Bill should not be retrospective in its effect. If a man has been living here for a number of years and goes abroad he should not be penalised because he happens to be abroad when the Bill comes into effect. Thirdly, we should not do anything which would break up family life. If we are to have this Bill, let us make it as humane as we can.

Mr. Chapman: I understand that the Amendment in my name, in page 1, line 17, is being discussed with the Amendment which has been so ably moved by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade). In this set of Amendments we offer the Government a set of alternatives which could be amalgamated or taken apart and put together in a different way so as to amend Clauses 1 and 2. I want to make it clear that we must also consider a distinction between the Amendments to Clause 1 and those to Clause 2.
I will deal first with the Amendments to Clause 1. Here we are dealing with exceptions from the purpose and operation of the Bill. Our argument on this series of Amendments is that the definitions put into the Bill so far by the Government are unduly narrow. We say that not every person who is a relative of someone exempt from the operation of the Bill will be stated on that person's passport. This is a very important point, because there is no necessity for a wife and children to be on the passport of the breadwinner or the man of the family.
It is very unlikely that the families of men who are already here and who want their wives and children to join them will be on the breadwinner's passport. Therefore, it is very important that subsection (2, c) should be extended so as to cover families, which I think is the intention of the Government. As the Clause stands, it cannot cover the families of men who are already here and who are exempt from the operation of the Bill. That is why we try in this series of Amendments to Clause I to extend the definition of "family" to cover what subsection (2, c) was meant to cover.
We add to that two other main categories. One is the person who has been over here for some time and who might go abroad. From now on, he will have no right of re-entry under the Bill as drafted. If any of the thousands of West Indians and others who are already in this country return to their homeland for a while and then want to re-enter, they will no longer be exempt. They will not be able to establish a right of re-entry. That is why we have included these words:
a person who has in the five years previous to his entry into the United Kingdom been ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom for a continuous period of one year.
If this provision were written into the Bill, it would enable people who are already in this country to return to their homeland and after a while return to their jobse in this country.
Both the Amendment in page 1, line 17, which was moved by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West, and the Amendment in my name in page 1, line 17, mention persons who are dependent on—

Mr. Thorpe: On a point of order. There is such a noise coming from the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) that I can hardly hear the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman). Could it be suggested to the noble Lord that if he must converse in loud tones he should do it outside the Chamber and not inside?

The Deputy-Chairman (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): I am bound to say that I could hear perfectly well what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) was saying.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Chapman: You may be able to hear me, Sir William, but I am barely able to hear myself because of the rudeness of hon. Members opposite.
To continue what I was saying, another point arises in connection with the word "dependent." In my Amendment I have proposed the words "mainly dependent." In other Amendments the phrase is "partially dependent." We are trying to deal with what are known in the West Indies as common law wives—the persons who in the common law of their land are regarded as married, who probably, when

they come to this country as they do in increasing numbers, to join their husbands, go through a form of proper marriage and conform to our customs.
It is very important for these family units, particularly when there are children involved, that such a person who is dependent on, in the sense of being a common law wife of, a person already in this country, should be guaranteed entry to join her husband.
The last point relates to the paragraph in my Amendment which refers to a woman who satisfies the immigration officer that she is coming to this country for the sole purpose of marrying someone already exempt under the Bill. In the two Amendments to page 2, line 34, we are not trying to make complete exemptions from the Bill but we say that when a person is admitted under Clause 2, under the voucher system or in any other way, after the beginning of the operation of this Measure, then his wife, family or dependants should be allowed to come and join him. I think it is important to make this distinction between total exemption in Clause 1 and allowing the entry of dependants and such people under Clause 2.
The Minister of State will, no doubt, say that he can deal with these questions under Clause 2 as it stands. Clause 2 (2) says:
…nothing in this subsection shall affect the power conferred by this section to admit any Commonwealth citizen into the United Kingdom subject to conditions.
We do not think that is good enough. There is a very important principle here of making sure that families can be united. We do not want a variation in practice around the ports. We do not want immigration officers to be left with discretion on matters concerning the uniting of families.
If the Government really mean that they propose to do all these things for which we ask, there seems no reason why they should not say so in the Bill. I believe that most of the representations that we have received from Commonwealth countries about this Bill have referred to this issue alone. People want to know definitely that families will be allowed to come to this country if their menfolk are either excepted from the provisions of the Bill or are admitted under Clause 2.
If the Government have good intentions, what possible harm can there be in accepting a form of words which will make it clear to everybody that the Government intend to admit the kind of people to whom I have referred? I trust that as these Amendments have been introduced in a constructive fashion, we shall be met with some constructive response from the Government.

Mr. S. Silverman: In order to see whether these Amendments should be accepted or rejected, it is worth while seeing what the position is under the Bill as drafted, without the Amendments.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) have both taken it for granted that it is common ground between the two sides of the Committee that the uniting of families is a desirable thing and that the policy of the Government is in favour of uniting them, not dividing them. That is a misconception. It is not a question of putting into the Bill words which will make certain that what is a common object shall not be left to anybody's discretion but shall be a statutory obligation on the Government, which is what my hon. Friend has pleaded for, but it is rather a question of bringing the Government's general policy on matters of this kind into line with what common humanity would seem to demand.
These may seem rather hard things to say, but the Home Secretary earlier today said that the scheme of the Bill might be understood if one grasped that it is now proposed to apply the scheme in operation for aliens to these classes of British subjects. Thus, in order to see what the position is, one has to see what Government policy now is with regard to the uniting of families in the business of a man being allowed to come here when he has no legal right to come and then bringing his family to join him after he has succeeded in getting over the difficult years and establishing himself in a position, in an occupation and in a home.
The present policy of the Aliens Department, as I understand it, is to prevent that very thing happening. As I understand the matter from recent

correspondence I have had with the Minister of State, the position is this. A man may be a desirable immigrant by every standard commonly applied. He may apply for a job or be invited to take a job in this country in regard to which the Minister of Labour has no objection. He may thus, considered by himself and on his own merits as an individual, be a man who, within present aliens policy, would be granted a visa by the Home Office and a labour permit by the Ministry of Labour and be, therefore, entitled to come and reside and earn his living here. But that is not the whole story. It may be that such a man has dependent children in his country of origin.

Mr. Chapman: I have not the slightest interest in defending the Home Secretary, who knows very well what I think about his behaviour in regard to this Bill, but we are, in fact, in a better position than my hon. Friend thinks. On Second Reading, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), the right hon. Gentleman said:
Yes, the wives and children
and he went on to say
When we come to the Committee stage we shall have to consider other degrees of relationship, which is always a problem for the immigration service…I am able to say 'Yes' to the hon. Lady's question". —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1961; Vol. 649, c. 696.]
In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, the right hon. Gentleman gave us a definite assurance on the matter.

Mr. Silverman: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I was present on Second Reading. I heard the speeches. I know what assurances have been given in the course of the Bill so far. I will come back to that presently. For the moment, I am concerned with what is the present practice, because what the Home Secretary has said this afternoon, in spite of what my hon. Friend has quoted from his previous speech, is that it is proposed to apply to these British subjects the present practice with regard to aliens. I hope, therefore, if my hon. Friend will forgive me, to finish my description of the present position as applied to aliens which the Home Secretary, under the Bill, whatever he may have said on Second Reading, proposes to apply to British subjects.

Mr. R. A. Butler: My hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State will be replying to this debate, and I hope that he will be replying helpfully. I do not quite recognise the statement of mine that I made this afternoon about aliens.

Mr. Silverman: If the right hon. Gentleman says that, I must look more carefully at the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow morning, but I am strongly under the impression that it was said in the course of the debate this afternoon—I thought, by the right hon. Gentleman—that the scheme of the Bill was to apply in these respects to British subjects affected by the Bill the same policy as is now applied to aliens. If the right hon. Gentleman says that he is not applying the same policy, that is another story. In that case, he will have to meet the point made by my hon. Friend and say why he does not make it clear in the Bill.
At the moment, I shall proceed on the basis that the Government are not drawing two lots of distinctions, one between British subjects who happen to be resident in a Colony as contrasted with British subjects who are resident in the United Kingdom, and the other a further discrimination between those people and aliens subject to the same kind, quality, class or category of restrictions as is now to be applied.
In the case that I have described, if the man were single, if he had no dependants, if he had no children, if he had no family, he could come. If, however, he has dependants, even though he is not asking to bring the dependants along with him, he is refused leave to land and refused a labour permit by the Minister of Labour, merely because he has in his country of origin dependent children whom he may, perhaps, some day, wish to bring to live with him. That is the present policy of the Home Office and the Ministry of Labour with regard to what my hon. Friend calls the unification of families and keeping the family together as a unit.
If the right hon. Gentleman is not intending that, he ought to accept one or other of the Amendments which have been moved, or, if he cannot do that, he ought to promise to put on to the Order Paper an Amendment which would make operative the passage in his speech to which my hon. Friend the Member for

Northfield has just referred. That is my first point in support of the Amendments.
My next point is of a different kind. The Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West specifically refers to residents. Most of us were present and heard the Attorney-General make a speech at the conclusion of the debate on the last Amendment. He said that to understand the scheme of the Bill, one could roughly categorise the people who would be affected by it as against those who would not as the resident or the non-resident. When I pointed out that the Bill was not quite so drawn, the right hon. and learned Gentleman coined another phrase, the belongers and the non-belongers, opening vistas of speculation as to when a British subject ceased to belong to the British family.
10.45 p.m.
As far as I can see, under the law as it stands a British subject born and resident in Jamaica has exactly the same rights in all respects as a British subject born in Manchester. They all belong. What the Bill is then doing, according to this phrase of the Attorney-General's, is to expel or partially expel some members of the family. They no longer belong. They are not members of the family any more. They belong somewhere else. I do not think that the Attorney-General can really have meant that.
Let us go back then to his earlier explanation that the real distinction which the Government wished to draw was not between members of the family and others who were nevertheless British subjects, but between resident members of the family and non-resident members of the family. That was the real distinction which the Attorney-General asked us to accept as the line of discrimination. If that is so, there can be no reason whatever for not accepting the hon. Member's Amendment. All it does is to make that point of view explicit. If the Government are not willing to make it explicit and are not willing to give the same rights to members of a man's family as they give to the man himself if he is resident or born here, let them not grumble if the result of their policy is to increase every one of the evils, largely imaginary and illusory, on which


they profess to base the whole of this discriminating policy. I hope that the Government spokesman will be able to give the hon. Member some satisfaction on the Amendment.

The Minister of State, Home Department (Mr. David Renton): I am glad to say that the Government are in broad agreement with those who put forward these Amendments, to the extent that the various categories of people covered by the Amendments, we think, should be allowed, generally speaking to enter or re-enter the United Kingdom. The question, of course, is whether it would be appropriate or not for them to be dealt with under Clause 1, as envisaged in the first, second and third of the Amendments we are discussing, or dealt with under Clause 2, as the fourth and fifth Amendments envisage, or whether on the other hand they should be dealt with under Clause 2 in the way we have so far intended and have had in mind, namely by instructing immigration officers to admit most of these people. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I ask the Committee to bear with me. This is a very important and interesting matter, and there is not quite so much gulf between us as might at first seem.
What we have had in mind so far is that they should be admitted under Clause 2 by the immigration officers, acting under instructions which my right hon. Friend will give them—in any event my right hon. Friend would have to give them instructions—and incidentally, will be in some ways slightly more liberal than some of the provisions in the Amendments. We shall see that as we go along.
For reasons which I shall explain, this matter is quite unsuitable for Clause 1. It may be that I can persuade hon. Members that there are great difficulties about writing elaborate definitions and instructions into Clause 2. But I say this—that we will keep an open mind about the possibility of writing some of the contents of these Amendments into Clause 2. We will consider the matter carefully between now and Report.
Equally, I would ask hon. Members in the interests of the immigrants themselves and in the interests also of having a smooth working machine which does not cause unnecessary delays at the ports,

to keep open minds, at least to the end of this debate, for, believe me, it is not an easy matter. I will give an example of the sort of difficulties that arise. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman), whom I do not see in his place, said he did not want immigration officers to have a discretion at all, but the strange thing is that the third Amendment we are discussing, to Clause 1, page 1, line 17, which stands in his name, would give a discretion to immigration officers, because it says:
(f) a person who satisfies the immigration officer that he wishes to enter the United Kingdom for the sole purpose of marrying…
It might perhaps be useful if I first of all summarise the categories to which, collectively, these Amendments refer. First, they deal with people ordinarily resident on 1st November, 1961; secondly, with people who, in the preceding five years, have been ordinarily resident for one or two years; thirdly, with spouses, children and other relatives and dependants; fourthly, those intending to marry; and fifthly, they deal with students—a category which, by general consent, is to be dealt with at a later stage.
The three Amendments to leave out paragraph (c) of Clause 1 and to insert various categories would give an absolute and unrestricted right of entry to anyone falling in any of these proposed categories—a right which, under Clause 1 as drafted, is given only to those born here or truly belonging to the United Kingdom. Surely it is important for us to note that, if these three Amendments were accepted, all people to whom they apply would have an absolute right to come here and remain here even if diseased, or with a criminal record, or if they were security risks.
It is, as I indicated, our intention that a large proportion of people covered by these Amendments should be admitted under Clause 2, but the question which immediately arises is whether they should be exempted altogether from control under Clause 1. In considering this question we have to consider the principle upon which Clause 1 is based. That principle is that every one who is born here, and most of those who hold United Kingdom passports, shall have an absolute right to enter here because they are, essentially, the people who are native to this country—our constituents.


That principle is, of course, easy to apply in practice and is a much easier test than asking an immigration officer to decide whether a person has been ordinarily resident even for a long time.
The principle is easy to apply in practice, because every traveller, or nearly every traveller, already carries a passport, and every passport shows the place where it was issued, the Government which has issued it, and also the place of birth of the person or people included in it. Therefore, the immigration officer, in dealing with the people who have the benefit of free entry under Clause 1, has no discretion to exercise. He merely has to look at the passport to see either that the person was born in the United Kingdom or that the passport is a United Kingdom passport.
Let us see what would be the position if we included in Clause 1 any of the categories which are covered by these Amendments. We should get into a frightful muddle; something very different from the simple arrangements of passports about which I have already spoken. First, there is the point of principle, and that is that all people covered by the Amendment belong to and would have come from another Commonwealth country or territory and, therefore, do not come within the exemption of Clause 1, which is designed to facilitate the re-entry to our own country of our own people. Then, even if we departed from the principle or said that there was no difficulty in it, we should still have great difficulties in operation and definition.
The immigration officer would always have to ask questions and make difficult decisions. For example, if one scans the Amendments, one finds the expression "ordinarily resident" occurring in no fewer than six places in the first three Amendments. Now the term "ordinarily resident" has given a considerable amount of trouble to the courts, and there is a not inconsiderable amount of case law on it, as the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) knows from his own experience.
I should like to assure the Committee that we propose to instruct immigration officers to admit freely all those people who have been away from this country for less than one year, whatever the previous length of their stay had been.

As to those who have been away for longer than one year, the instructions will cover the case and the immigration officer will have to consider how long the absence has been. —[Interruption.] Does the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) wish to speak? I do not know if that is the way in which he intends to master the responsibilities of his new office, but he has been keeping up a running commentary. These are very important matters, matters which his own constituents might also consider as of great importance.
I was saying that when those who have been away for more than one year are concerned, the immigration officers will have to consider how long the absence has been and for how long any previous visit was and what was the reason for entry. I can tell the Committee that it is my right hon. Friend's intention to exercise this power in a liberal manner, and he takes note of the fact that those already here should have special consideration. If I might go on with this exercise of showing how this would work out if we followed the Amendments in relation to Clause 1, I would like to speak first of relatives and dependants. Those are very wide terms, the understanding of which varies in the different countries of the Commonwealth, and I assure the hon. Gentleman the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) that we are anxious that families should be united and that parents and children should have ease in getting together.
At the same time, it would not be right to have wives and children exempted by Clause 1, unless the head of the family was himself exempted. If he is exempt, of course his wife and children will be, if their names are endorsed on the passport, and that is the point of subsection (2, c).

Mr. Fletcher: Why should their right of entry depend on whether their names are entered on the husband's passport? Why should they not have the same right if they have independent passports?

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Renton: They would, indeed, have the same right if they had independent passports, and they would get that right under paragraph (b), but paragraph (c) is a matter of convenience so


that the wife and children would not always have to have separate passports of their own.

Mr. Wade: If the wife did not hold a United Kingdom passport and if her name did not appear on her husband's passport, she would not be exempt?

Mr. Renton: I would like to consider that. If it needs adjustment—[Interruption.] These matters of nationality and passports, as the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) with his long experience of the Home Office knows extremely well, are very complicated. It is not only a question of the law which applies, for practice also enters into it. However, I would prefer to consider that point and let the hon. Member know.

Mr. Ede: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman mean to say that he has not previously considered that?

Mr. Renton: I know that this point has been considered, but I am not absolutely certain that I heard the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West correctly. It would be a great mistake incautiously—[HON. MEMBERS: "Repeat it."]—to give an answer which might not be accurate. It is much more sensible that I consider the matter and get in touch with the hon. Member.

Mr. Wade: If the hon. and learned Gentleman did not hear correctly, may I repeat it? It is very simple and it is clear enough. If the wife does not hold a United Kingdom passport and her name does not appear on the passport of her husband, will she be exempt or not?

Mr. Renton: It depends—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—on where she was born and whether she is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. If she was born in the United Kingdom, it does not matter where her passport was issued. If she needs a passport and is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, her duty would be to obtain a United Kingdom passport, which she would be able to do not merely in the United Kingdom but, if it was as defined in subsection (3), a passport issued—[An HON. MEMBER: "It says 'not being a passport issued'."] Let hon. Members wait. As I understand the position, it is possible for the Government of the

United Kingdom to arrange for their own passports to be issued outside the United Kingdom, and I think that that is the crux of the matter which the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West raised. As I have said, it would be much more sensible, in spite of the explanation which I have endeavoured to give, if I were to consider the point further and get in touch with the hon. Member.
The first three of the Amendments which we are now discussing would both conflict with the principle of Clause 1 and interfere with its practical operation, and if these considerations are to be dealt with, we say that they are better dealt with in Clause 2. I therefore come to Clause 2 and the possibility of dealing with them in that way. I must confine myself to the Amendments in Clause 2, page 2, line 34, at end insert:
"or
(c) that he wishes to enter the United Kingdom for the purpose of whole or part-time study; or
(d) that he is a person who is related to or wholly or partly dependent upon a person resident in the United Kingdom".
and in Clause 2, page 2, line 34, at end insert:
"or
(c) that he wishes to enter the United Kingdom for the purpose of whole or part-time study; or
(d) he is the spouse, the child, stepchild or adopted child under the age of twenty-one of, of a person mainly dependent on a person admitted under this section; or
(e) that he wishes to enter the United Kingdom solely for the purpose of marrying another person admitted under this section".
I have already dealt with the position of those who are resident and have said that my right hon. Friend wishes to have a liberal attitude towards them.
As to wives, the position seems simple to us in this country with our ideas of legal forms of marriage resulting in monogamous unions, but, as the hon. Member for Northfield pointed out, some immigrants, especially from the West Indies, contract so-called common law marriages. In fact these marriages do not have the binding force of law which common law marriages do, for example, in Scotland. Also, it is rare for there to be any documentary evidence of such marriages.
However, we are anxious for husbands and genuine wives, even common law


wives, to live together, and so we propose that the immigration officers should strive to achieve this by admitting wives accompanying their husbands, and by letting in those who later wish to join their husbands. Clearly the immigration officer will have to ask some questions to decide whether the wife is what she claims to he. Fortunately her passport will generally show this, although that is not always so in the case of a common law marriage, and in a case like that further questions will be necessary.
As to children, I join those hon. Members who wish to see children and their parents remain together. In this context, children would include not only those begotten in wedlock, but also natural children, step-children, and adopted children. Generally there will be no difficulty about children, as they will be on the passport of one or other parent if they are under sixteen. That age happens to include all children of our present compulsory school-leaving age or below. It will be our practice to admit freely children under sixteen joining or accompanying their parents.
As to other relatives and dependants, the Amendment to Clause 2, page 2, line 34, does not define the word "related", but one knows that in some parts of the world the word "cousin" is freely interpreted. Similarly, the word "dependants" can have a broad meaning. If we wrote anything into the Bill about other relations or dependants, we should at once be in great difficulty of definition, and surely it is more humane, as well as more practical and likely to lead to better administration, to give some detailed guidance to the immigration officers about how to deal with these cases.
Our instructions to them will be framed so as to enable them to deal appropriately with cases of hardship. I should remind the Committee that in practice the factor of hardship is often more important than the precise degree of relationship. We have to be rather careful about this question of relatives and dependants, because there could easily be rackets run to circumvent the system of labour vouchers by bringing in so-called relatives and dependants.
As to people who want to marry, we propose to instruct the immigration officers to allow people in for this purpose

when one of the intended spouses is already here, provided that there is evidence that the parties are personally known to each other. [Laughter.] Strangely enough, it has been found that Cupid has done his work entirely through the post on some occasions. We find that with regard to the administration of aliens, and then there is the question of marriage bureaux here and abroad which has to he looked at very carefully.
We will insist that the parties are personally known to each other, and that the marriage will take place within a specified reasonable time, which we would normally regard as being three months.
I would point out that Amendment No. 32 is defective, because the man might be coming here to marry a woman who did not wish to marry him. In any event, I can assure the Committee that the experience obtained in the administration of the Aliens Order has been valuable and that it is quite capable of dealing with these matters.

Mr. John Baird: On a point of order. The Minister is making a deplorable speech and obviously does not know what the Bill is about. In those circumstances, would it not be better if he withdrew the Bill and presented it once again next week?

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. James H. Hoy): That is not a point of order.

Mr. Renton: The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) made a comparison between the Bill and the Aliens Order. The only important thing that the two have in common is that in each case a discretion is given to immigration officers. But the Aliens Order, as it is administered, is very much more stringent than the provisions of the Bill. I ask the hon. Member to bear that fact in mind in thinking further about this comparison.
We propose to consider, between now and Report, the various points which arise in the Amendments. As I said at the beginning of my speech, we are in broad agreement that the vast proportion of people covered by the Amendments are people who should be allowed in, and any difference there may be between us is a difference of method.

Mr. Fletcher: I do not know whether the hon. and learned Member's speech has satisfied the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) or my hon. Friends, but it has certainly not satisfied me. The Minister seems to have done his best to cover the Bill with ridicule. He has confessed that the whole tenor of the Bill had not been properly considered before it was introduced. He admitted, as my hon. Friends have said in connection with an earlier Amendment, that this is a piece of hasty, ill-considered legislation.
The Minister had to admit that many of the problems raised in the debate had not been thought out. He said that he accepted the principle of the Amendments, but did not want to incorporate them into this Clause, and he gave a series of reasons why he could not incorporate them into Clause 2. He said that he would try to consider, between now and Report, whether he would be able to do something about the question at a later stage. But all he has really said is that he proposes to give instructions to immigration officers to administer the Bill in a liberal and humane way. That is not good enough. In a Bill of this kind, dealing with fundamental human rights and the traditional rights of entry into this country, the Committee is entitled to insist upon absolute safeguards.
As the Committee appreciates, the difference between this Clause and Clause 2 is that certain categories of persons are given absolute rights in this Clause, whereas everybody who can come into this country only under the provisions of Clause 2 is dependent upon the discretion—perhaps the arbitrary discretion—of the immigration officers. Everything the Minister has said has indicated that it will be very difficult for immigration officers to make a decision, in many cases. There is no certainty that any of the classes of persons that the Amendments seek to include will have the benefit of the of the arbitrary discretion of the immigration officers, if left to the tender mercies of Clause 2.
Having heard what the Minister has had to say, I think it essential that the provisions contained in the Amendments should be written into the Clause. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman agrees that there are certain classes of

person who are entitled to have precisely the same rights as are given to those persons already included in the Clause.
11.15 p.m.
Clause 1 confers an absolute right on persons born in the United Kingdom, but we do not think that goes far enough. We think that that right should be conferred on persons ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom whether they were born here or not. People who have made this country their home and have lived here for any length of time, to use the phrase of the Attorney-General, belong to this country just as much as persons who were born here. Therefore, there is a class of persons which ought to have the fundamental right to come to this country whenever they want and to be able to have holidays abroad without a passport, and certainly without having to satisfy an immigration officer.
We think that the same rule should apply to their dependants. The Committee should notice the difference. Under Clause 2 dependants could be excluded on various grounds, for example, on medical or criminal grounds. No one who comes under Clause 1 can be excluded at all, and if a person is entitled to come to this country under the provisions of Clause 1 we think that his wife and dependants should have the same absolute right. They certainly ought not be be excluded on medical grounds.
The hon. and learned Gentleman and the Home Secretary paid lip-service to the principle of not breaking up family life. But that can be practised only if the dependants of the person who has a right to come here also have the absolute right to come, and cannot be excluded on medical or criminal grounds. It would be monstrous if a person with an absolute right to come here were to find that his wife were excluded either on medical or criminal grounds, or, I venture to think, on security grounds, because people who belong to this country ought to have the same right of entry as natural-born British subjects who have always lived here. That is why I hope that on principle my hon. Friends will press this Amendment to a Division.
It seems to me to raise the whole issue that the class of person who has the


right to come here should be defined as widely as possible and that it should include not only those born in this country but those who have made their home here by residing here for a certain period of time; whether it be one or two years within the last five years does not matter. If there has been a monogamous marriage they should be able to bring their wife. If they have come from the West Indies where people have what are called common law wives under the law and system of marriage under which they have been living in Jamaica or other parts of the Caribbean or elsewhere, the same right should apply to them. There should not be any attempt to discriminate. I think that we should be failing in our duty to these people if we left them at the mercy of an immigration officer under the provisions of Clause 2, or if they were left to rely on some instructions which could be given, which might be administered humanely in a great many cases, but in certain cases, perhaps exceptional cases, would enable an immigration officer at his own discretion to exclude people from the right to enter this country. I hope that this Amendment will be pressed to a Division.

Mr. R. H. Turton: I do not quite agree with the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) on how easy it would be to bring in under Clause 1 a family or spouse joining someone in this country. I think my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State made a good case by saying that it would add to the difficulties if we put this into the exceptions in Clause 1, but I think the Government should think again about leaving it merely to the instruction to the immigration officer under Clause 2.
I should have thought that where a family was joining up here it ought to be written specifically in the Bill. In addition, no doubt, the immigration officer should have discretion in other cases, but where a wife was joining her husband or a husband was joining his wife the Bill should make it quite clear because I know it is the intention of the Government that such a union should take place.
I have risen because I wish to put two other types of case which I believe

should come under Clause 1. The first is where there is a Commonwealth or colonial citizen here now who wants to go on holiday, either back to his own country or it may even be to France. I am told that at present there is great consternation, certainly among West Indians, because they feel that if they go back to the West Indies for a holiday they cannot come here again. I am quite certain that it is not the intention of the Home Secretary that there should be this restriction on them going on holiday. They should be encouraged to go. They are welcome in the country and this Bill should not apply to them. It might be—I do not know, and I hope the Attorney-General can satisfy me on this—that in some provision of a Clause in the Bill which I have not found there is a complete right of re-entry for those Commonwealth and colonial citizens who are here now. I have not found it. I think that before we part with the Bill that should be made clear in Clause 1 and not left to Clause 2.
I am also concerned about a great number of people who may well have been born in the Commonwealth and been the sons of settlers and want to come back to this country. I believe those people, who have done a very good work, sometimes for the United Nations or sometimes for a Commonwealth Government, when they want to come back should come back as of right. I hope my hon. and learned Friend will have consideration for that very numerous class of people who regard Britain as their home and would hate to have to come back here subject to the scrutiny of an immigration officer. I should dislike seeing that class of person dealt with under Clause 2; they should be dealt with under Clause 1.

Mrs. Eirene White: I do not think we should allow discussion of this subject to pass without having at least one woman speaking on it. It seems to me that the attitude of the Government to the Clause as drafted is derogatory to the female sex.
It is suggested that a woman should be included on the passport of her husband, but there is no reason at all why a woman should be so treated if she


does not wish that. She need not necessarily herself be a United Kingdom subject. She may have dual nationality. As the hon. and learned Gentleman said, there are complications in this matter, but the absolute principle is that if she is legally married under any nationality to a person who is exempt under Clause 1 she should have an absolute right to come in with her husband. "Those whom God hath joined together" are not for the Home Secretary to put asunder. There should be an absolute right with no question whatever. Whether the form of words in these Amendments is correct, could be discussed, but the principle should be absolutely accepted as that surely is the wish of the people of this country.
Similarly, there should be an absolute right for children, and not merely children up to the age of 16. So far as I recall the Minister of State made no reference to children between 16 and 21. A child might not necessarily accompany either of its parents. What is to happen then? These things should not be left to the discretion of immigration officers. They should be absolute.
I also consider that there should be an absolute right for mothers and fathers to come to join their children who have settled in this country. The principle of family life and its sanctity should be respected in a Bill such as this. We hear the most unctuous sentiments from Ministers of the Crown—from the Home Secretary, the Minister of Education, and others—about the need to cherish Christian ideals.
Honour thy father and thy mother…
That should appeal to the Government. They should give us an absolute assurance that people will not be separated from their mothers and fathers.
I agree emphatically with my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) that this should be absolute. It should not be subject, for example, to medical certificates. Many of us have had to deal with refugees. We have had experience of trying to get families out of refugee camps when one member of a family had a medical disability. Sometimes years passed with no success because one member of a family could not pass the neces-

sary medical tests, so the whole family was left lingering in a refugee camp.
It will be shameful if that kind of attitude is adopted in regard to the Bill. We must have an absolute assurance from the Government that they will write into the Bill a right in this respect. We have heard a great deal about the value of having a charter of human rights for various parts of Africa. Let us have a charter of human rights for this country. It should be written into the Bill.
It is not good enough to say that elaborate instructions will be given to immigration officers and that the Bill will be liberally interpreted, whatever that may mean. Several times we have been asked to trust the good intentions of the Government in administering the Bill. I do not need to remind the Committee where good intentions leave one. The whole attitude of the Government is that we should leave to them the administrative instructions, with which we may not be acquainted and which we cannot alter. The whole attitude is that we should trust the Home Secretary and his successors. Those of us who have had to deal with the problem of aliens find it very hard to place this unbounded confidence in the attitude of the Department.
It is humiliating to the House of Commons for the Government to present it with a Bill which has so clearly been inadequately thought out. The problems which we have discussed this evening are problems which any self-respecting Minister would have thought out thoroughly before he faced the Committee. It was obvious that they would be raised. The standing of the wife was clearly a matter which would be of interest to us. The Minister should have prepared his case more thoroughly.
I understand that some parts of the Amendments which we are discussing may need closer definition. I agree that the phrase "related to" is rather wide. In my country of Wales we have a fairly wide cousinship. We have an extended family. I appreciate that it may he necessary to define more closely the degrees of consanguinity. I do not think that any one of us would object if the hon. and learned Gentleman said


that the Government felt that there should be a closer definition of the degrees of relatives, that some people could come of absolute right, but that in the case of others it should be discretionary. But those whom we have mentioned, the immediate close family kinship, should be absolute. When their legal status is in some doubt I admit that we need some discretionary element if we are to have this Bill at all, but where the legal relationship is clear within the close family circles that I have described —father, son and so on—I think there should be no question whatever, and I cannot believe that the Committee would wish to pass this Bill without these guarantees written into it.

11.30 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I should first like to explain the reason why Clause 1 sticks so closely to what is shown on the passport. If we are going to have any system of control of immigrants, it is obvious that it must be one that is workable. The test that we have taken, as I indicated when I spoke earlier, is the passport ab initio. The immigration officer will be able to see straightaway from what appears on the passport whether the person seeking to enter comes within one of the exempted categories in Clause 1 (2).
The hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) has made a powerful plea for the female sex and sought to suggest that this provision as it now stands is derogatory of that sex. I assure her that that certainly was not the intention. After all, many wives have their own separate passports. Many wives of persons born in the United Kingdom will hold a United Kingdom passport and they will be citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. So, if one bears in mind that paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (2) deal with what appears on the passport, perhaps this becomes a little easier to comprehend.
May I go on to say that to write in other exemptions under subsection (2) will cause real practical difficulties in the administration of the scheme. While saying that, I do not want to be unsympathetic to the views which have been expressed; we are not unsympathetic. My hon. and learned Friend

the Minister of State made it clear that there is not much difference between both sides of the Committee as to what we want to achieve. The real problem is how it should be achieved.
A point was made about wives and children not on the passport. If the children are not on the passport and the wife does not have a separate passport, then obviously subsection (2) will not apply ab initio. That cannot happen. But what we certainly want to achieve is that wives will be able to come and join their husbands if their husbands are already here, and the same applies to children under 16 if their parents are already here.
The difficulty about that—and I should like the Committee to face it squarely—is this. It is quite wrong to say that we have not considered these matters. We have. We have spent hours going through this Bill and considering the various problems. I may say straightaway to the hon. Lady that the problems that she and my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) have raised are by no means novelties. What we thought—and the Committee may disagree with us—was this. One can make the position perfectly clear by instructions to the immigration officers. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) said that is not good enough. But it has this advantage, which I would ask him to appreciate, that it gives a considerably greater degree of flexibility than a definition of "relative" inserted in the Bill, because, under a definition of that kind one is apt to have the borderline case and, if a case does not come within that category, the immigration officer may say, "That is laid down in black and white, and I have no power to go either way on it".
That was one approach. There is also the other approach of seeing, as my hon. and learned Friend suggested, whether we can meet what are the wishes of both sides of the Committee and, indeed, our objective all through, by administrative means, securing that wives and children who do not possess passports or who are not entered on the passport are not refused admission. The same problem arises in much the same way in regard to holidays and the question of re-entry. We had it in mind to deal with it in


that way and give a good deal of flexibility.
Taking, first, those who are here and who go out, there is power for them after a certain time to become citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies and then, if they wish, obtain a United Kingdom passport. But, quite apart from that, if they do not take that step, if proof were established that they are people who have left this country and are seeking to re-enter—the matter of proof, if it were to be written into the Bill, would have to be considered carefully—we should certainly not be in favour of excluding them.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton raised the question of settlers who want to come back and who regard Britain as their home. I apprehend that the vast majority of those are entitled to come in, possibly, under subsection (2). I say "possibly" because a lot depends on the particular circumstances of each individual. It is easy to talk about the British settler, but a British settler may have abandoned United Kingdom and Colonies citizenship and taken the citizenship of somewhere else. It is difficult to generalise.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: What about Australians and Canadians? What are they to do?

The Attorney-General: If they were born in the United Kingdom they will come back. They will not be shut out. The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) talked about people who have been in this country for some time and then go out. Anyone of that kind would have to satisfy the immigration officer that the facts in his or her case were as alleged. That is Clause 2(2), the subsection which deals with satisfying the immigration officer. There is no particular mystery about the word "examination". The burden would be, and would rightly have to be—because it could not rest on the immigration officer to prove a negative—on the applicant where it was not shown in the passport in what category he came. The applicant would have to satisfy the immigration officer that the facts were as alleged.
I assure the Committee that there is no real division of view as to what we

want to achieve. The argument relates to the method. For the reasons I have given, bearing in mind the position of the immigration officer, it will not be possible, as I see it to make Amendments to Clause 1 to deal with this problem, but, as my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State indicated, we shall give serious consideration to the wishes of the Committee and see to what extent we can meet them by making it clear in the Bill—because that, I gather, is the wish of the Committee—that if someone comes along and says to the immigration officer, "I am the wife of someone who is in this country at the present time", or, "I am of British ancestry", they should not be excluded. We do not want to exclude them, and none of us does. We want to see that if we have this control, it works satisfactorily. I can give the assurance that we shall seek to endeavour to put in what the Committee indicates it would not be content with in instructions, although I think that instructions would give more flexibility. We will see whether we can put in words which achieve what the Committee wants and yet retain that degree of flexibility that I believe to be desirable.

Mr. Thorpe: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman a point of information about what is meant by "United Kingdom passport". This is of importance, and I consider the drafting extremely ambiguous. By subsection (2, b) as drafted, those who have complete exemption are either those holding a United Kingdom passport, being citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, or somebody
who holds…a passport issued in the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland".
In subsection (3), "United Kingdom passport" is defined as being
a passport issued to the holder by the Government of the United Kingdom, not being a passport…issued on behalf of the Government of any part of the Commonwealth outside the United Kingdom".
If one tries to find out what is meant by "a Government outside the United Kingdom Government" and one tries to find out whether this means a Commonwealth Government which is completely independent, such as, for example, Australia or New Zealand, or whether it is a Government which is still dependent,


such as Jamaica, upon this country for external affairs, one turns to the interpretation in Clause 21 and one gets no assistance.
For the purposes of subsection (3), does a Jamaican passport issued by a dependency or a passport issued in Zanbar, Kenya or Nyasaland qualify as being a United Kingdom passport, or are those dependencies Commonwealth Governments for the purposes of the Bill?

The Attorney-General: The answer is "Neither". This point arises more properly on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", but if it is for the convenience of the Committee I will certainly deal with it now. The drafting is perfectly all right. It is rather tight drafting, I agree. The United Kingdom passport is, however, accurately defined as
a passport issued to the holder by the Government of the United Kingdom—
that is, in Great Britain and Northern Ireland—
not being a passport so issued on behalf of the Government of any part of the Commonwealth outside the United Kingdom.
There will be passports issued to persons who have, say, come from Australia or Jamaica or any part of the Commonwealth, and who are in this country, in replacement of passports which may have been destroyed, lost or anything of that sort. Those passports will be issued on behalf of the Government of the country concerned—say, Australia or Canada. Therefore, the holders of those passports will not come within the scope of subsection (2). That has to be so, otherwise there would obviously be a gap in the scheme.
The hon. Member has drawn attention to subsection (2, b). That, again, is carefully drawn so that one gets the automatic exemption when one
holds a United Kingdom passport and is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, or…holds…a passport issued in the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland".
The reason for those words, as my right hon. Friend explained—the hon. Member may not have been present—is that there are passports issued by the United Kingdom, for instance, to British-protected persons who are not even British subjects. I think that the wording is all right, but if the hon. Member has any

further anxieties and cares to write to me about them, I will certainly give him as full an answer as I can.

Mr. Gordon Walker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has given a rather conditional undertaking to try to write certain things into the Bill, but, clearly, to satisfy us he also relies in part on instructions to immigration officers. He laid great weight on the fact that a great deal that the Committee wanted would be achieved in this way. Would those instructions be known to the House, or would we have any way of telling that these things were being carried out?

The Attorney-General: I think the Committee would certainly want some information about that. It is common ground. We all want to know how it works. The people affected will want to know, but it is not a question for me to answer. On the question of the propel form in which this would be done I would prefer that the Committee asks my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. R. A. Butler: In the course of my speech on Second Reading, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition raised this point, and at that time, basing myself on present practice, I said that there would be great difficulty in publishing such instructions. Since that date I have given the matter my personal consideration and, in my view, I would be right to depart from precedent and make these instructions available. The only thing I can do is to promise to make them available at a particular date. I do not think that they could be rushed during the Committee stage or anything of that sort. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) understands that. But they would be available before the Bill is again before the House. I think that that is a considerable departure from precedent, but it will show the type of instructions which we intend to give to immigration officers.
We cannot put these things in Clause 1. We can put them in Clause 2, but if we state them too rigidly, without flexibility, it may have unfortunate results. For example, in the case of children, suppose we say "children up


to school-leaving age" what happens if we want to include a child of 17 in a particular case? We want to combine statutory form and instructions. The instructions will be liberal, but when they are put on paper in statutory form they will be a minimum, and therefore I think that we are probably giving the Committee more, and meeting the Committee more, than it has hitherto realised. We are trying to combine a liberal instruction with a basic statutory wording.

Mr. Gordon Walker: We want to know that the instructions are truly liberal. The right hon. Gentleman said that when he publishes them will give an indication of the type of instructions, but we want to know the actual instructions and know that we can debate them if we do not like them.

Mr. Butler: The question of debate is a matter which we shall have to consider, because that would raise a completely new form of Parliamentary debate. I will certainly consider that, and I foresaw that we should reach that question at this stage. If we discussed for hours on end in Committee the whole of our aliens administration we would find difficulty, whereas in the final result our aliens administration is liberal. In the final result the administration of the Bill will be more liberal than our aliens administration, and we wish to make it so. Therefore, I will do all I can to meet the wishes of the Committee, but I cannot go further on that than what I have said tonight.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: In connection with the Amendment to which I have attached by name, in page 1, line 17, to leave out paragraph (c) and to insert five new paragraphs, I am still left in serious difficulty by the Government's assurance. We have been told that we shall be notified when instructions are given to immigration officers in respect of the persons covered by that Amendment, but the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General have made it clear in dealing with this type of Amendment that they are not prepared to grant rights to these categories of persons under Clause 1 and that they must be dealt with under Clause 2. In my mind one difficulty stands out here. That is, even assum-

ing wildly for the moment that the Home Secretary's instructions to the immigration officers will be really liberal in this respect, we are still left with the fact that any such instructions issued under Clause 2 will be subject to subsection (3) of that Clause. In other words, the admission of these persons will be subject to medical and security checks.
This is a very important point because of what the right hon. Gentleman has told us tonight. He tried to tell us that we and the Government were seeking the same aims but by different methods. For reasons which I found unconvincing, he said that the Government were not prepared to accept the method of putting them in Clause 1 but would put them in Clause 2. But the Government have shown that their aims are quite different from ours in the treatment of dependants and other individuals mentioned in the third Amendment we are discussing, because they wish to remove them from the category of people having an absolute right to enter the country. They want, instead, to put them into the category of those who have qualified right of that entry, being subject to medical and security checks.
If we accept the Government's method, we are accepting a piece of retroactive legislation. The Government have said that the reason for the Bill is to deal with a future problem of immigration, to check a flow which may become a flood. Therefore, by inference, we are not, under this Bill, interfering with the rights of existing immigrants. We are not dealing with the rights of people already resident here, or of people who have been resident here in a recent period and who have gone abroad for a holiday, as already mentioned by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). The rights of these people should not be touched by the Bill.
Equally, we are not, by inference, dealing with the rights of persons already here—people who have already been admitted in the past—to bring their dependants over to join them. The Government say they are anxious that families should be re-united, but in the third Amendment we are not dealing with dependants of people who may be coming in the future for the first


time, but with dependants of those who are or were ordinarily resident here on 1st November, 1961, or who have been resident here but whose residence has been temporarily interrupted.
These are the people who have, under our legislation to date, had an absolute right of entry, as have their dependants. This is not the future flow of immigrants which the Government are wanting to control. If the Government now say, "Yes, we agree that these people should be exempted from control in the future, and it is merely an argument between us as to the method by which it is to be done," then I reply that if these people are the ones who are to be exempted they are the people who should have an absolute right. But Clause 2 cannot give them an absolute right because, under subsection (3), they will be subject to medical, security and other checks.
This is, therefore, saying in effect that these medical and security checks, which are an innovation in dealing with Commonwealth citizens, will now retroactively deal with those already resident or who have gone on holiday. This is an intolerable interference with the absent rights of our Commonwealth citizens. The absolute right of Commonwealth citizens to enter this country is the status quo. The legislation which we are introducing is to modify and clarify that right and is something for the future.

The Attorney-General: I fear that I cannot have made clear to the hon. Lady what I was trying to say. I made the point that under subsection (2) of Clause 1 the passport is cogent evidence of the status of the person wanting to come in; that is easily done by the immigration officer. Under Clause 2 (2) one is dealing with the case where other evidence has to be relied upon by the immigration officer, for there we have categories about which the immigration officer has to be satisfied; where he is satisfied on certain evidence that there is an absolute right. So, there is the absolute right in Clause 1 or 2 and it is only a question of establishing how one is entitled to that right.
I hardly conceive it to be possible that one would want to submit wives or children of somebody resident here, who

are coming to this country, either to a medical test of any kind—

Hon. Members: It is in the Bill.

The Attorney-General: Yes, but we have said that we would see if we could meet the views of the Committee by putting some words into Clause 2 which would cover that situation. If we do that we can at the same time make provision for dealing with the point on medical examination to which the hon. Lady refers. I thought that it would save the time of the Committee if I indicated that at this stage.

Mrs. Castle: The more I listen to the intentions of the Government as pronounced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the more clear it becomes to me that the Government plunged into this Bill without considering the meaning of the words. I do not claim to be a constitutional expert, but I can read. How can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say that anybody is given an absolute right under Clause 2?
I would ask the learned Attorney-General to read subsection (3) of Clause 2. He says that he will find some form of words for that in order to give absolute rights to certain persons under subsection (2) of Clause 2. But that subsection says:
Notwithstanding anything in subsection (2) of this section. …
Really, I do suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he and I ought to change places. I believe that I am the most modest person in this Committee, but I must say that I am at a loss to understand how anybody with any claim to legal training should say that I should withdraw Amendment No. 5 which demands an absolute right in favour of a qualified right under Clause 2. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says, "Withdraw it, for we will include these people, although, under Clause 2, by my own wording subsection (3) qualifies any rights which might be given under subsection (2)." He tells me that I am an ordinary lay person from the back benches and that I should withdraw my Amendment and leave it all to him.
The more I listen to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the more determined I am not to leave anything to the promises of this Government.

Mr. M. Foot: I want to comment on the remarkable statement of the Home Secretary. At a quarter to twelve, after we had had about two hours' discussion of these Amendments, the Home Secretary told us that in order to meet the wishes of the Committee he was prepared to make a completely new departure from the arrangements which the Home Office had previously made. He said that, contrary to all previous practice of the Home Office, he was prepared to declare to the House of Commons, in some unspecified manner, the instructions which would be given to immigration officers under the Bill.
12 m.
He said that he was doing so in order to meet the claims of hon. Members. But if the Government thought that the way to deal with these Amendments was to enable the House of Commons to discuss instructions given to immigration officers, it is very peculiar that the statement should have been made by the Home Secretary right at the end of the debate, following an intervention by the Attorney-General and following a longer speech by the Minister of State earlier.
The principal theme of our discussion has been whether the operations of the immigration officers were to be trusted, or whether we should include definite provisions in the Bill. If the Government's main defence was that they intended to lay before the House of Commons the instructions or advice which they were to give to immigration officers, and that the main reason why we should trust their claims was that that was their decision, it is extraordinary that neither the Attorney-General nor the Minister of State said so.
Neither seemed to be aware of it. The Minister of State spoke very ably for half an hour and went through the details of the matter and said that we should trust the immigration officers. If the Minister of State knew that the instructions to immigration officers were to be presented to the House of Commons, why did he not tell us? I ask the hon and learned Gentleman to say whether when he spoke he knew that it was to be the Government's policy that the instructions to immigration officers were to be declared to the House of Commons. Did he know?

Mr. Renton: I knew that my right hon. Friend was contemplating making a statement on the lines of that which he eventually did make.

Mr. Foot: Before I deal with that, perhaps I can put the same question to the Attorney-General. Was he aware that the Home Secretary was contemplating making a statement? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]

Sir Leslie Plummer: Did the Home Secretary know?

Mr. Foot: The position now is that the Minister of State knew that the Home Secretary was to make a statement, but he did not tell us. Perhaps the Home Secretary did not know, but I will deal with him in a moment.
I am sure that the Minister of State has done his best to get his right hon. Friend out of a difficulty. He is an honest fellow, but I do not believe that the hon. and learned Gentleman had the foggiest notion that the Home Secretary was to make such a statement. I do not think that he had the faintest idea, because he is such an honest fellow that if he had known that the whole operation of the Bill was to be altered by an important statement by the House Secretary he would have told us. He would not have kept a trump card like that up his sleeve.
On top of all the other extraordinary events which we have had with the Bill, we have now had a situation in which the Home Secretary has told the Committee at a quarter to twelve that he is prepared to make a vital change in the practice of the Home Office. When the right hon. Gentleman made his announcement, he did not pass it off as if it were something trivial. He did not say, "I do not suppose that it matters tuppence one way or the other, but it so happens that I am going to tell you what I am going to tell the immigration officers".
He did not say that. He said, "I have been considering this matter very carefully ever since the Second Reading debate. I have been kept awake at night thinking about it. I have been wondering how I could get out of this hole. I have now decided that, contrary to the practice of the Home Office over the past forty years in operating the


Aliens Order, I will accord to the Opposition and to the House of Commons the right to see the instructions we give to the immigration officers". The right hon. Gentleman asks us to believe that he thought over the matter so carefully that he did not even trouble to tell the Minister of State that he was going to make this announcement.
Nobody in the House believes the Home Secretary when he says that he had thought the matter over so carefully that he had not made his decision about five minutes earlier. I am not saying that he had not considered the proposition earlier, but it was only when he discovered that he was in something of a hole, or maybe that he was a bit light-headed, that he chucked this in to see how it would work. He is in such a muddle over the Bill. He probably said to himself, "If the Irish can be in one moment and out the next, let us see what we can do with this instruction to the immigration officers".
The truth of the matter is very simple. We know that the Home Secretary is not such a fool as all that. We know that he comes along here at night and smoothly says, "I will tell you what instructions I am going to give to the immigration officers", but when he tells us them they will not mean a thing, and if they do not mean anything they will destroy the whole case put by the Attorney-General, because he is saying, "You must be very careful. You must not destroy the flexibility of immigration officers. You must not interfere with them and prevent them from exercising their magnificent, magnanimous, liberal discretion. You must not do that because the Home Secretary is going to give them instructions".
Of course the instructions will mean nothing. Indeed, as one of my hon. Friends asked, how will these instructions be laid before the House? What Parliamentary procedure is there for this to be done? If they are not included in the Bill, how can they be debated? When are they to be discussed? How can we decide whether we want to alter the instructions to immigration officers? What are the Committee proceedings on Bills for, if not to settle matters like this? If the Home Secretary thinks that the Committee can be palmed off by his performance, he must think that we are

a very innocent lot. He must think that we are prepared to accept the haphazard method he has adopted in dealing with this question.
The truth is that the Attorney-General says in effect, "You must trust the Government". That is what it adds up to. He says, "You must trust the Government, whether they publish the instructions to the immigration officers or not. You must trust the Government to act in a liberal fashion". If the Government had a strong, powerful, and sustained liberal record, there might be some reason for trusting them, but the only person who thinks that they have a liberal record is the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). His function in politics is to try to persuade people that the Government are really liberal. Nobody else believes it, and on this Bill we have had a whole series of illiberal actions. Why should we trust the Government?
Moreover, the Attorney-General says, "You must be very careful. If you write into Clause I the provisions which are demanded in these Amendments, if you say specifically that you are going to protect different categories of people, it will be more difficult to be flexible afterwards". It will not. We can protect all these people in the Bill, and still give discretionary powers to the immigration officers afterwards, even if we are going to send them instructions as well.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Those are exactly the words I used at this Box.

Mr. Foot: I am rendered speechless by that intervention. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that that is what he said, nobody else in the Committee accepts it. Moreover, if what he was saying is the same as what I have been saying, why does not he write these provisions into the Bill, and, over and above that, give a discretionary right to immigration officers? If he thinks that he was saying the same thing as I have been saying he should look at HANSARD tomorrow. It seems that he has come here in what is an extraordinary state for him. He has come in a mood very different from that which we expect from him. Perhaps the shedding of his responsibilities as Leader of the House has made him light-headed. But if he


agrees with what I have just been saying he should be agreeable to writing into the Clause the categories of people who should be protected.

Mr. R. A. Butler: When I spoke I was referring to Clause 2.

Mr. Foot: I was referring to this Clause. That is the argument between us. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) has already disposed of that argument. If we wish to protect these classes of British citizens we can write these provisions into the Clause quite well.
I want to say a few words about one section of the community which is dealt with in the Amendments but which has not been mentioned by any hon. Member. As has been said, the question of bona fide students is covered by the Amendments, and it would be quite improper if that question was not mentioned. [Interruption.] The question is covered by part of Amendment No. 4. I know that there is to be a further debate on this subject, but nobody can deny that it is covered by the Amendment. That was made clear when the Chairman called the Amendments.

The Chairman: We are discussing the question of students under Clause 2. It was thought much more convenient to have a separate debate about students.

Mr. Foot: Yes, but it was stated by you that we were discussing Amendment No. 4, which deals with bona fide students.

The Chairman: We are discussing Amendment No. 4, except in so far as it refers to bona fide students.

Mr Gordon Walker: Although it has been agreed that we shall not have a big debate about students, surely in a

Division No. 22.]
AYES
[12.15 a.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Biggs-Davison, John
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry


Aitken, W. T.
Bingham, R. M.
Brooman-White, R.


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Bishop, F. P.
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)


Allason, James
Black, Sir Cyril
Browne, Percy (Torrington)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian
Bossom, Clive
Bryan, Paul


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Bourne-Arton, A.
Buck, Antony


Atkins, Humphrey
Box, Donald
Bullard, Denys


Barber, Anthony
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.
Butter, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)


Barter, John
Boyle, Sir Edward
Campbell, Cordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)


Batsford, Brian
Braine, Bernard
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)


Berkeley, Humphry
Brewis, John
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)


Biffen, John
Bromley Davenport, Lt.-Col-Sir Walter
Channon, H. P. G.

general way they would be covered by the Clause, and especially by Amendment No. 4.

The Chairman: It has been generally agreed by the Committee that we should have one debate about students on Clause 2.

Mr. Foot: I am prepared to reserve what I have to say about students for the later debate, although it was stated at the beginning of this debate that they were covered by it. Moreover, the Minister of State specifically drew attention to the fact that there had been no reference to the question of students, although he apparently came briefed on it if on nothing else. It is very disadvantageous to the Committee that we shall not be able to hear his speech on that subject.
I repeat that the Government's exhibition in dealing with these Amendments has been worse than their exhibition on the previous one, if that is possible, especially since the Home Secretary has sought to mislead the Committee by suggesting that he was making an important pronouncement—or an unimportant one. I am not sure which it was. If he was making an important pronouncement when he said that he would publish the instructions to be given to immigration officers, that pronouncement should have been made earlier by the Minister of State. If it was an unimportant pronouncement, which I suspect it was, it should not influence hon. Members at all.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Martin Redmayne): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Martin Redmayne) rose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 202. Noes 123.

Chataway, Christopher
Hollingworth, John
Pitt, Miss Edith


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Pott, Percivall


Cleaver, Leonard
Hopkins, Alan
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Cooper, A. E.
Hornby, R. P.
Prior, J. M. L.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Corfield, F. V.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Pym, Francis


Critchley, Julian
Hughes-Young, Michael
Ramsden, James


Curran, Charles
James, David
Rawlinson, Peter


Currie, G. B. H.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Rodmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Renton, David


de Ferranti, Basil
Joseph, Sir Keith
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Ridsdale, Julian


Drayson, G. B.
Kimball, Marcus
Roots, William


du Cann, Edward
Kitson, Timothy
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Duncan, Sir James
Leburn, Gilmour
Russell, Ronald


Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
St. Clair, M.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shaw, M.


Emery, Peter
Litchfield, Capt. John
Shepherd, William


Errington, Sir Eric
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Longbottom, Charles
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)


Farr, John
Longden, Gilbert
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Finlay, Graeme
Loveys, Walter H.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Fisher, Nigel
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Storey, Sir Samuel


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McLaren, Martin
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Tapsell, Peter


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Maclean, SirFitzroy (Bute&amp;N. Ayrs.)
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Freeth, Denzil
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Taylor, F. (M'ch'ter &amp; Moss Side)


Gammans, Lady
MCMaster, Stanley R.
Teeing, William


George, J. C (Pollok)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Temple, John M.


Gibson-Watt, David
Maddan, Martin
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Gilmour, Sir John
Maginnis, John E.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Godber, J. B.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Goodhart, Philip
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Goodhew, Victor
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Gower, Raymond
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Turner, Colin


Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Green, Alan

van Straubenzee, W. R.


Gresham Cooke, R.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Vane, W. M. F.


Grimston, Sir Robert
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Vickers, Miss Joan


Gurden, Harold
Monigomery, Fergus
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Walder, David


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Morgan, William
Walker, Peter


Hare, Rt. Hon. John
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Nabarro, Gerald
Ward, Dame Irene


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Noble, Michael
Webster, David


Harvey, Sr Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Wise, A. R.


Hastings, Stephen
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Hay, John
Page, Graham (Crosby)



Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Woodhouse, C. M.


Hendry, Forbes
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Woollam, John


Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Peel, John
Worsley, Marcus


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Percival, Ian
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Pike, Miss Mervyn



Hocking, Philip N.
Pilkington, Sir Richard
TELLERS for THE AYES:


Holland, Philip
Pitman, Sir James
Mr. J. E. B. Hill and Mr. Whitelaw.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Dempsey, James
Hilton, A. V.


Ainsley, William
Diamond, John
Holman, Percy


Albu, Austen
Dodds, Norman
Holt, Arthur


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Driberg, Tom
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Baird, John
Evans, Albert
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Fernyhough, E.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Fitch, Alan
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)


Blackburn, F.
Fletcher, Eric
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)


Bowden, Herbert W. (Letts, S.W.)
Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas


Boyden, James
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Jeger, George


Brockway, A. Fenner
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)


Callaghan, James
George, LadyMeganLloyd (Crmrthn)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
King, Dr. Horace


Cliffe, Michael
Gourlay, Harry
Lawson, George


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Greenwood, Anthony
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Cronin, John
Grimond, J.
Lipton, Marcus


Crosland, Anthony
Gunter, Ray
Loughlin, Charles


Crossman, R. H. S.
Hannan, William
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Hart, Mrs. Judith
MacColl, James


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hayman, F. H.
Molnnes, James


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Herbison, Miss Margaret
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Delargy, Hugh
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)







Manuel, A. C.
Randall, Harry
Wade, Donald


Mapp, Charles
Robinson,Kenneth (St. Panoras, N.)
Wainwright, Edwin


Mellish, R. J.
Ross, William
Warbey, William


Mendelson, J. J.
Short, Edward
Watkins, Tudor


Millan, Bruce
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Mitchison, G. R.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Whitlock, William


Morris, John
Small, William
Wilkins, W. A.


Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Snow, Julian
Willey, Frederick


Oram, A. E.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Oswald, Thomas
Spriggs, Leslie
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Paget, R. T.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Winter-bottom, R. E.


Pargiter, G. A.
Stonehouse, John
Woof, Robert


Pavitt Laurence
Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Peart, Frederick
Swingler, Stephen
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Plummer, sir Leslie
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)



Popplewell, Ernest
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Probert. Arthur
Thorpe, Jeremy
Mr. Redhead and Mr Ifor Davies.

Questions put accordingly, That that words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause:—

Division No. 23.]
AYES
12.24 a.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
McMaster, Stanley R.


Aitken, W. T.
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Freeth, Denzil
Maddan, Martin


Allason, James
Gammans, Lady
Maginnis, John E.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Aston, Sir Hubert
Gibson-Watt, David
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Atkins, Humphrey
Gilmour, Sir John
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest


Barber, Anthony
Godber, J. B.
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)


Barter, John
Goodhart, Philip
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Batsford, Brian
Goodhew, Victor
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Biffen, John
Gower, Raymond
Maydon. Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Biggs-Davison, John
Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Montgomery, Fergus


Bingham, R. M.
Green, Alan
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Bishop, F. P.
Gresham Cooke, R.
Morgan, William


Black, Sir Cyril
Grimston, Sir Robert
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Bossom, Clive
Gurden, Harold
Nabarro, Gerald


Bourne-Arton, A.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Noble, Michael


Box, Donald
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.
Hare, Rt. Hon. John
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Braine, Bernard
Harrison, Cot. Sir Harwood (Eye)



Brewis, John
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Bromley Davenport,Lt.-Col.Sir Walter
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Brooke, Rt. Hon Henry
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Brooman-White, R.
Hastings, Stephen
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hay, John
Peel, John


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Percival, Ian


Bryan, Paul
Hendry, Forbes
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Buck, Antony
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Bullard, Denys
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pitman, Sir James


Butler, Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Hocking, Philip N.
Pitt, Miss Edith


Campbell, Cordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Holland, Philip
Pott, Percivall


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hollingworth, John
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Car', Robert (Mitcham)
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Prior, J. M. L.


Channon, H. p. G.
Honkins, Alan
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Chataway, Christopher
Hornby, R. P.
Pym, Francis


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon, Dame P.
Ramsden, James


Cleaver, Leonard
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Rawlinson, Peter


Cooper, A. E.
Hughes-Young, Michael
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
James, David
Renton, David


Corfield, F. V.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Critchley, Julian
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Ridsdale, Julian


Curran, Charles
Joseph, Sir Keith
Roots, William


Currie, G. B, H.
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kimball, Marcus
Russell, Ronald


de Ferranti, Basil
Kitson, Timothy
St. Clair, M.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Leburn, Gilmour
Shaw, M.


Drayson, G. B.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Shepherd, William


du Cann. Edward
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Duncan, Sir James
Ll!chfi5id, Capt. John
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Eccles, Rt. Hon. sir David
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Longbottom, Charles
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Emery, Peter
Longden, Gilbert
Storey, Sir Samuel


Errington, Sir Eric
Loveys, Walter H.
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Tapsell, Peter


Farr, John
McLaren, Martin
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Finlay, Graeme
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Taylor, F. (M'ch'ter &amp; Moss Side)


Fisher, Nigel
Maclean,SirFitzroy(Bute&amp;N.Ayrs.)
Teeling, William


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Temple, John M.







Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Vickers, Miss Joan
Wise, A. R.


Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Walder, David
Woodhouse, C. M.


Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Walker, Peter
Woollam, John


Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek
Worsley, Marcus


Turner, Colin
Ward, Dame Irene
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Webster, David



van Straubenzee, W. R.
Wells, John (Maidstone)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Vane, W. M. F.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Mr. J. E. B. Hill and Mr. Whitelaw.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Gourlay, Harry
Oram, A. E.


Ainsley, William
Greenwood, Anthony
Oswald, Thomas


Albu, Austen
Grimond, J.
Paget, R. T.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Gunter, Ray
Pargiter, G. A.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hannan, William
Pavitt, Laurence


Baird, John
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Peart, Frederick


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Hayman, F. H.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Blackburn, F.
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Popplewell, Ernest


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Probert, Arthur


Boyden, James
Hilton, A. V.
Randall, Harry


Brook way, A. Fenner
Holman, Percy
Redhead, E. C.


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Holt, Arthur
Robinson,Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Ross, William


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Short, Edward


Callaghan, James
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Cliffe, Michael
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Small, William


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Snow, Julian


Cronin, John
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Soskioe, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Crosland, Anthony
Jeger, George
Spriggs, Leslie


Crossman, R. H. S.
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Stonehouse, John


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Swingler, Stephen


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
King, Dr. Horace
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Delargy, Hugh
Lawson, George
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Dempsey, James
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Wainwright, Edwin


Diamond, John
Lipton, Marcus
Warbey, William


Dodds, Norman
Loughlin, Charles
Watkins, Tudor


Driberg, Tom
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
White, Mrs. Eirene


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
MacColl, James
Whitlock, William


Evans, Albert
Melnns, James
Wilkins, W. A.


Fernyhough, E.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Willey, Frederick


Fitch, Alan
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Fletcher, Eric
Manuel, A. C.
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Mapp, Charles
Winterbottom, R. E.


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mellish, R. J.
Woof, Robert


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mendelson, J. J.
Wyatt, Woodrow


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Millan, Bruce
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mitchison, G. R.



George, LadyMeganLloyd(Crmrthn)
Morris, John
TELLERS for THE NOES:


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Mr. Wade and Mr. Thorpe.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I beg to move, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
I do so not because the Government are satisfied with the progress that has been made but in view of the very liberal approach that we have made, especially to the last Amendment. We have done a good deal of work, and in the circumstances I move this Motion.

Mr. Gordon Walker: We on this side of the Committee naturally agree to the

Motion. We disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. We think that we have made very good and rapid progress on so important a Bill as this. We feel that we should be able to deal with it in a reasonable time, paying regard to its enormous and revolutionary importance.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

Orders of the Day — DE-NUCLEARISATION OF AFRICA (UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. J. E. B. Hill.]

12.34 a.m.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: I wish to raise tonight the deplorable failure of the United Kingdom delegate on the Political Committee of the United Nations to support a resolution calling for the declaration of the continent of Africa as a neutral and nuclear-free zone. This was an opportunity, which comes to this country only too rarely, to make clear that, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, the developing nuclear arms race and its accompanying drift to war required emphatic action wherever possible to stop them.
One point on which Her Majesty's Government have claimed to be different from the Soviet Union is that Her Majesty's Government have said time and again that we should not merely strive towards the difficult and elusive goal of general and complete world disarmament, but should advance wherever possible by practical steps to that end, stage by stage. One obvious practical step would be to support any effort anywhere in the world to declare certain parts of the globe to be nuclear-free areas into which nuclear weapons should not be introduced if we in the West could do anything to stop it.
The continent of Africa is, I suggest, outstandingly one of those areas. Some of us would like to see Europe made a nuclear-free zone also, but we recognise that the great Powers are already there in occupation, in situ, nuclear weapons and all, and the possibility of rolling back the forces of the great Powers facing each other, equipped with nuclear weapons, is rather remote and difficult of attainment. But Africa, at any rate until the French Government started their atomic tests in the Sahara, was innocent of the horror of the nuclear weapon.
We all know that it is the great desire of the overwhelming majority of the African peoples that they should not be embroiled in the cold war and that

their country should not become a nuclear battle-ground.
It was, therefore, a large number of the African Powers who, in the Political Committee of the United Nations, introduced in November of this year a resolution which called upon the members of the General Assembly to recognise the need to prevent Africa becoming involved in any competition associated with the ideological struggles between the Powers engaged in the arms race, particularly with nuclear weapons, and called upon the General Assembly and its members also to recognise that the task of economic and social development in the African States required the uninterrupted attention of those States in order that they might be allowed to fulfil their goals and contribute fully to the maintenance of international peace and security.
In the context of those introductory objectives, the resolution had the following three specific provisions. It called upon Member States:
(a) to refrain from carrying out or continuing to carry out in Africa nuclear tests in any form;
(b) to refrain from using the territory, territorial waters or air space of Africa in testing, storing or transporting nuclear weapons;
(c) to consider and respect the continent of Africa as a de-nuclearised neutral one".
I am at a loss to understand how the representative of Her Majesty's Government, claiming, as that Government do, to care for the goal of world disarmament, could have refused to back that resolution, not only with a vote, but with passionate speeches of support.
In heaven's name, what are we waiting for to start the disarmament race instead of the arms race? What opportunity, what initiative are we hoping will fall from the skies if we ignore an opportunity such as the one that was presented to us? Indeed, so overwhelming was the case for the resolution that no member of the United Nations dared to vote against it. They would stand indicted in the eyes of the world had they done so.
What did Her Majesty's Government do? They joined a number of Powers, whose enthusiasm for disarmament is very suspect in the eyes of the uncommitted nations, in cowardly abstention


upon one of the clearest issues that the United Nations has ever had to discuss. In doing so, of course, they joined company with such anti-imperialist Powers as South Africa, and they joined company with a number of African States who are associated with the French Community—in other words, who are economically dependent for their future development upon France and dare not, in the United Nations, condemn France for conducting tests in the Sahara in the teeth of opposition from the rest of Africa.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) and I raised this matter in the House the other day, that fact was given as one of the reasons which excused the representative of Her Majesty's Government for joining them in abstention. Everyone knows that in these African affairs, the African nations who are associated with the French Community are in a special class, the class of territories dependent upon the economic neo-colonialism of the French Government.
When we asked our Question the other day, we were referred by the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs to a speech by the United Kingdom delegate for the Government's excuses for abstaining on this issue. I have referred to that speech. It contains no justification whatever. In fact, it is another parade of that typical British hypocrisy which is losing us the leadership of the uncommitted nations, which we could have if we had the courage and the vision to try to seize it in these perilous times.
The United Kingdom delegate said that he did not believe it was
for the United Nations to direct States to follow any particular policy except in so far as, in particular cases, the pursuit of a given policy threatens the peace.
Does not the introduction of nuclear weapons into an area where they do not exist threaten the peace? What else threatens the peace if it is not the dragging of an unwilling continent into the nuclear arms race of the great Powers in their pursuit of the cold war?
Another argument advanced by the United Kingdom delegate was that it was not very good passing the resolution because

There could be … no guarantee that Africa would be 'atom free' in the absence of effective international verification. Such verification is possible only within the context of agreement on disarmament in all its aspects.
This is putting off into the never-never-land any progress towards disarmament.
It is exactly the same argument that the Soviet Union has recently advanced when some of us have been hoping and praying that we could advance towards a limited agreement on nuclear weapon tests. The Soviet Union started hedging by saying that we could have inspection and control of nuclear weapon tests within the context of general disarmament, and when the Soviet Union used that excuse we all accused her of hypocrisy, myself among them. Certainly Her Majesty's Government did so, but when it suits their books they advance exactly the same argument.
This is why I have raised this matter on the Adjournment. Great Britain claims that she is an ex-colonial Power. Great Britain claims credit for the fact that she has given and is giving still political independence to certain African States, but in this crucial moment of world history that is not enough. We must enter into the hearts and minds and spirits and needs of these African people if we are to turn a once imperial rule into close partnership and into joint political leadership.
We shall lose their sympathy, their friendship and their love unless we identify ourselves with their demand that their continent shall be kept clean of nuclear weapons and that they shall be allowed to concentrate on the job of fighting poverty instead of fighting the cold war. What is more, by failing to associate ourselves with them and with the initiative for peace by the uncommitted nations in the United Nations we are jeopardising the lives of our people in our own country and heading the world along the road to war.

12.47 a.m.

Miss Jennie Lee: Not much needs to be added to the eloquent plea that has already been made, but I would ask the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs to keep in mind that we have been told that the great drama of our times is the struggle for the souls of men and that ultimately the question whether there will be war or peace will


be decided not just by the extent of our arms but by how far we can convince the great masses of men and women that we really mean peace.
One of the most hopeful and helpful things that have emerged in recent times is the clear indication that the new States in Africa do not want to be the creatures of either Soviet diplomacy or Western diplomacy. Surely this should be our opportunity, and we are doing the gravest disservice when we are deliberately antagonising millions and millions of citizens who are becoming increasingly conscious of the problems of the world as well as those of their own country. As I wish to leave time for others who may want to take part in the debate and for the Government reply, I will say no more than to ask the Government please not to under-estimate the importance of this point.

12.49 a.m.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. J. B. Godber): I have listened with care to the remarks of the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). I thought that her speech was somewhat intemperate at some stages and I will deal with the points she made, but I was more impressed by the shorter intervention of the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee).
I have observed the criticisms that have been made of the action of our delegation in abstaining on this Resolution dealing with de-nuclearisation of Africa. I think I should summarise once again the reasons why we chose to vote in the way we did, but I must ask the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) to realise the position that the Government felt bound to take up on this matter, and on other matters of similar nature. This is not an isolated resolution. There are a number of resolutions here, and we have followed a consistent policy in this regard and one which I believe has the support of the great majority of our people.
My hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State explained on 29th November why we did not feel it appropriate to lay down a foreign or defence policy for all the countries in a given area. It is an unreasonable thing, and it would be wrong for us to seek to do so. At that time, the hon. Member

for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) said that the great majority of the people of Africa demanded neutralisation of the continent. The hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn has used similar language. It may or may not be the case that the great majority desire that. All we have to go on is the votes of the African states concerned at the United Nations.

Mr. Fenner Brockway: rose—

Mr. Godber: I cannot give way. I have only a short time. Of these countries, 15 voted for the resolution and 9 abstained when the resolution was voted on in the First Committee. An additional country abstained in plenary at a later stage. Thus, I do not think one can call it an overwhelming majority.

Mr. Michael Foot: South Africa had a vote.

Mr. Godber: South Africa I did not include. There was an additional abstention in plenary. I have deliberately excluded South Africa for this argument. The hon. Member for Blackburn sought to say that certain of these countries were not free agents in this matter. I believe that this is a wrong approach to take to countries which have been given full sovereignty and which are members of the United Nations. It could be applied equally to countries of certain blocs which always vote one way as it could to these African countries. They are entitled to be considered as sovereign and independent states. It is a very dangerous line to take to say that they are not free in this respect.
But even if the majority in favour had been larger, the principle remains that geographical contiguity does not give Governments the right to impose a given policy on their neighbours. If some African states wish to de-nuclearise their territories, they are free to do so. No one would wish to stop them. But if they wish to get their neighbours to follow suit, it is up to them to persuade their neighbours, using the ordinary processes of international intercourse. We do not think it the function of the United Nations to lay down policies for whole areas against the will of some of


the sovereign states in those areas. That is something which must be realised but which does not seem to have been realised in the hon. Lady's speech.
There are other drawbacks which arise from the nature of the proposals in the Resolution. Frankly, although, of course, we understand the feelings of those African states who want to isolate Africa from the threat of nuclear war, we are not sure that such isolation would hold in the event of a world war breaking out. We believe that the only way to remove the danger facing Africa, as with the danger facing the rest of the world, is by seeking to achieve the purpose of this and other resolutions in this vein through the wider effect which we now have to get in the form of general and complete disarmament.
We would welcome, and wanted to achieve, the banning of nuclear tests all over the world, and we have been very disappointed that there has been such a sharp setback in that matter, but so far as getting rid of nuclear arms altogether is concerned, we believe that that must be done in the context of general disarmament. This is what we want to achieve, and it is what the Government is anxious to achieve. We are working towards it through, we hope, the new body set up at United Nations.
This is something positive in this field, and we should merely mislead world opinion if we were to claim that isolated zones of peace could be established or maintained while the arms race and the danger of war raged in the rest of the world; and that is true of all arms. After all, it was Mr. Litvinov, I think, who said that peace is indivisible, and that applies in this context; it applies to all arms, and how much more true it is of nuclear weapons. The wide geographical extent of the fall-out of the recent grim series of nuclear tests by the Soviet Union is alone enough to show how impossible it is to confine the effects of nuclear weapons to any one part of the globe.
This can only be done on a worldwide context with weapons of this type.

Mr. Stephen Swingler: Does the hon. Gentleman want to stop this?

Mr. Godber: Another point on which we view this resolution with some

reserve is the absence from it of any reference to the need to verify and inspect the measures which would be taken. This applies particularly to that part of the resolution related to nuclear tests. The hon. Lady thought this to be a wholly unreasonable attitude, but this must be the whole basis of anything which has any element of security about it. It is no good at all seeking to carry out measures of this kind unless one has proper and effective international verification. That is absolutely fundamental to any solid basis upon which we can build in this field and it is nonsense to brush this on one side; that does no good to anybody. That applies particularly to this resolution, and the part relating to nuclear tests. The only way of dealing with this problem is a treaty suspending all tests under international verification. That is an essential by which we must stand.
I was a little puzzled when the hon. Lady, in the context of verification, talked of progress in this field as being something in the "never-never-land." That really is an unreal approach because, unless it is accepted that there must be verification measures in the modern world, with all its suspense and suspicion, there cannot be anything; and that applies to the narrower field as well as to the wider field of armaments as a whole.
There is a very real danger in passing "cosy" resolutions designed to damp down people's fears, but which in fact do not provide any element of protection or security at all and which almost certainly would be cast aside under the pressure of events. That is something which we have to face up to, and unless there is some form of verification, such resolutions are of no benefit at all.

Mr. M. Foot: Why did the Government not vote against the Resolution?

Mr. Godber: We made our stand perfectly clear. We thought it inappropriate and quite sufficient to show our decision by abstaining on a resolution of this kind.

Mr. Swingler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Will he answer this question? Why have Her Majesty's Government not put forward any plan to the


Governments of the African States for preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and bases to the African States, persuading them to adopt a plan for the control and verification of areas in order to prevent the problems of nuclear tests and nuclear bases from arising in Africa?

Mr. Godber: It seems that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) was so keen to put his question that he was not listening to what I was saying. In effect, I was saying that we believe that these plans for nuclear tests must be on a world-wide basis and that it is misleading to think that there is any value in the basis of dealing with one continent at a time in this way. We have to do it on a world-wide basis if we are to get effective cessation of nuclear tests, or control, or whatever it may be. It must be done on a world-wide basis because of the very nature of nuclear weapons, and I thought that I had already made that abundantly clear.

Mr. Swingler: They must have nuclear weapons before they are stopped.

Mr. Godber: On the question of developing nuclear weapons; I must remind hon. Members that there is a very clear difference between the resolution which we are discussing and others which have been tabled to attempt to prevent the spread of nuclear capacity, that is, what is known in the jargon of the nuclear test conference, as the emergence of the Nth Power. Although we do not consider that a resolution such as that which we have been discussing can be effective in isolating particular areas from the danger of nuclear war, or that we could vote for resolutions like the recent Swedish one, for instance, which, we say, would impair N.A.T.O.'s ability to defend itself, if need be with nuclear weapons, at the same time we believe that something can and must be done to prevent the acquisition by any further countries of an independent power to manufacture or use their own nuclear weapons. For this reason, we have voted in this very session of the Assembly for the resolution put forward by the Irish Government to this very end. I think that that is an effective answer to the point which the hon. Member has just made.
I do not have time to develop the case as much as I would like, but I repeat that our abstention on this resolution did not indicate a callous indifference or anything of that sort. Still less did it indicate any desire to involve the African continent in the danger of nuclear war. It simply indicated our strong doubt about whether the Resolution would have any useful effect. As I have said, I do not believe that there is any value in passing resolutions which provide no element of safeguard and which merely result in confusing and giving people a false sense of security. That is not the way to help to deal with this problem.
The best way to advance is to try to get progress in the nuclear test talks, which we have been doing and which I was trying to do in Geneva last week; and also in seeking to get a new form for negotiating disarmament in its widest sense and to make progress in that direction. Those are the ways to do it, but they must be done, I repeat once more, on a definite basis of international verification and control. If once we get away from that, there is no basis for security of any sort. We have a duty to ourselves and to others to whom our lead in the world means something to bring this fact always before their minds and certainly not to mislead them in the way that the remarks of the hon. Lady would certainly mislead them and which I totally reject.

Mr. John Stonehouse: In view of the great importance of this subject to the Commonwealth, and especially to the States which are not yet independent and which do not yet have their own voices, what steps were taken to consult them and particularly to consult the opinion of Tanganyika and Uganda?

Mr. Godber: We have regular meetings at the United Nations with States which are independent within the Commonwealth. These matters can be and are discussed on various occasions in that way. There is not the same facility with non-self-governing territories, but various of those countries are coming forward to self-government—Tanganyika will be coming forward soon—and we hope to see her at the United


Nations. I have given an indication of policy which applies both to Africa and the rest of the world. I repeat that this is not a matter which can be effectively dealt with on the basis of areas and that it must be dealt with on the basis of the world as a whole.

Mr. Brockway: The hon. Gentleman said that there was not an overwhelming majority in Africa on one side of this

issue. Is he aware that the population—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Tuesday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at four minutes past One o'clock.